K.  s;  m 


EWING 


IMPORTANT    CORRECTIONS 

The  Publishers  are  responsible  for  typographical  and  me 
chanical  errors.  Some  of  these  were  made  after  the  proof- 
copy  had  left  the  author's  hands — thus  rendering  it  impos 
sible  for  him  to  know  of  these  blunders  of  the  printer  until 
the  completion  of  the  book.  The  most  inexcusable  and 
painful  instance  of  this  occurs  on — 

PAGE 

94,  line  9  from  the  bottom,  which  should  read,  "Of  the 
whole  number  six  were  Southern  men — four  Virgin 
ians  and  two  Mary  landers." 

Among  the  others  the  reader  will  readily  recognize 
the  following : 

55,  line  12:  eliminate  comma  after  "south"  and  use  it  after 
"instances." 

67:  constitution  only  when  it  means  the  National  document 
is  capitalized. 

69:  for  "addendum  of"  read  "addendum  to." 

76,  line  6:  for  "was"  read  "were." 

79,  line  n:  for  "and  the"  read  "and  then." 

83,  Hue  9:  for  "begins"  read  "begin." 

104,  line  17:  for  "and  their  importation"  read  "and  the  impor 
tation  of  slaves." 

108,  last  line:  for  "Rhodes  remarked"  read  "Rhodes'  remark." 
115,  line  2:  for  "geen"  read  "been." 
129  line  i:  for  "King"  read  "king." 
134,  line  24:  for  ^particeps"  read  "participes." 
165:  make  same  correction. 
179,  line  15:  for  "S.  E."  read  "S.  F." 
231,  line  24:  for  "was"  read  "were." 
247,  line  27:  for  "simply"  read  "simple." 
267,  line  6:  for  "place"  read  "placed." 
278,  line  30:  for  "what  of"  read  "want  of." 
280,  line  14:  for  "these"  read  "those." 
284,  line  28:  for  "wer"  read  "were." 
307,  Note:  for  "Hoy"  read  "Hay." 


£0.  J. 


IN  MEMOR2AM 
Dr.  V'illiem  A.   Morris 


Northern  Rebellion  oncl 
Southern  Secession. 


BY 


E.  W.  R.  EWING,  LL.  B. 


RICHMOND,  VA.: 

J.  L.  HILL  COMPANY, 

1904. 


GT~Y^ 


COPYRIGHTED,  1904, 
K.  W.  II.  EWiN 


To 
The  Memory  of  Father, 

From  Sumter  to  Ap- 
pomattox  a  brave 
Confederate  officer  ; 
until  death  a  citizen  of 
unblemished  life,  and 
ever  devotedly  loyal 
to  the  imperishable 
principles  of  the  Amer 
ican  Government.  ::: 


CONTENTS. 


I.  THE  FORMATION.  PAGES. 

Importance  of  Constitutional  landmarks. — Declaration  of 
Independence  not  a  government  agreement. — Von  Hoist's 
error  as  to  the  birth  of  the  nation  refuted. — Origin  of  his 
doctrine. — Articles  of  Confederation  the  first  union  for  a 
common  government. — The  Constitution  succeeded  the 
Confederacy. — Under  the  Constitution  it  was  mutually 
agreed  by  the  high  sovereign  contracting  powers  that  cer 
tain  functions  of  their  respective  sovereigns  should  be  ex 
ercised  by  a  common  head. — In  the  final  acts  of  ratifica 
tion  and  Constitutional  amendment,  each  State  stipulated 
that  she  should  be  the  judge  of  the  perversion  of  the  com 
mon  trust  imposed  in  the  central  government,  and  that 
she  might  withdraw  at  her  discretion. — The  proof  of  this.  11-27 

II.  INSTANCES  OF  ASSERTED  STATE  SOVEREIGNTY. 

Constitutional  construction  produced  the  first  political  par 
ties. — Doctrine  of  each. — The  first  rebellion  against  the 
United  States  was  in  Pennsylvania. — It  showed  the  preva 
lent  idea  that  the  people  of  a  State,  or  any  considerable 
number  of  them,  could  determine  when  the  Federal  gov 
ernment  became  obnoxious,  and  that  they  might  rightly 
use  force  to  resist  an  objectionable  procedure. — A  similar 
doctrine  produced  the  State  of  Franklin  (Tennessee). — 
Early  promulgation  of  the  doctrine  of  secession  and  State 
rebellion  by  the  Federal  party  in  the  Xorth. — Distinction 
between  the  nullification  of  the  Hartford  Convention  and 
the  nullifying  propaganda  of  South  Carolina, — Michigan 
in  rebellion  against  Federal  authority 28-37 

III.  THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  SLAVERY. — Early  Agitation. 

The  justification  of  secession  in  1861  does  not  depend 
upon  sustaining  the  theory  of  original  State  sover 
eignty. — Upon  what  the  right  of  secession  did  de 
pend. — Neither  the  righteousness  nor  the  perpetuity  of 
slavery  involved  in  the  Civil  War. — The  Constitution  left 
slavery  subject  to  the  State  laws,  except  as  to  fugitives 
and  the  African  slave  trade. — The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  recognized  slaves  as  valuable  legal  property. 
Official  evidences  of  this. — The  agitation  of  slavery  began 
in  the  North  by  an  unpatriotic  faction,  and  without  ex 
cuse  or  justification 38-53 


4  CONTENTS.  ! 

IV.  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE.  PAGES. 

Slavery  in  national  politics  not  the  inception  of  Northern 
agitation. — Agriculture  slave  labor's  only  profitable  in 
dustry. — The  economics  of  slave  and  free  labor  the  basis 
of  the  political  divisions. — Slavery  in  the  Missouri  coun 
try  protected  by  treaty. — No  legal  or  moral  grounds  for 
the  Missouri  Compromise. — Missouri  becomes  a  State. — 
Her  expatriation  of  free  negroes  the  result  of  Northern 
interference. — The  Compromise  repealed  in  1854. — The 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  constitutional  and  republican. — 
Northern  objection  to  it  examined:  (1)  "Bad  faith." — 
The  unconstitutional  "personal  liberty  laws"  of  Northern 
States. — Precedents  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 54-68 

V.  THE  NATIONAL  CHARACTER  OF  SLAVE  LEGISLATION. — Cotton  and 

Slavery;  Slavery  in  the  Old  Northwest;  Slavery  and 
'  Oregon. 

Second  objection  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill :  the  spread  of 
slavery. — Emancipation  in  the  South  as  late  as  1830. — 
Meaning  of  national  slave  legislation. — Causes  for  the  de 
cline  of  Southern  emancipation  tendency. — Not  caused  by 
the  cotton  gin. — Cotton  not  king. — Northern  emancipa 
tion  methods  responsible  for  procrastinating  Southern 
emancipation. — Economic  causes  for  emancipation  in  the 
North. — The  Ordinance  of  1787,  as  interpreted  under  the 
Constitution,  did  not  prohibit  slavery  either  to  the  Terri 
tories  or  States  in  the  Old  Northwest. — The  cause  of  the 
common  error  respecting  the  slavery  clause  in  the  Ordi 
nance. — The  error  examined. — History  of  local  slave  laws 
in  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Oregon 69-105 

VI.  THE  NEGRO  AND  OHIO. — Ordinance  of  1787;    Economic  Condi 

tions  Regulating  Slavery  in  Ohio  and  Missouri. 
Importance  of  Ohio's  slavery  regulations. — The  Ohio  Com 
pany  secures  land. — Effort  by  the  first  constitutional  con 
vention  to  secure  the  recognition  of  legal  slavery. — Why 
defeated. — Economic  causes. — Ohio's  experience  with  free 
negroes  a  lesson  to  the  South. — Gerritt  Smith  and  John 
Brown  added  evidence  to  the  fact  that  the  negroes  of  that 
day  were  "without  fitness  or  capacity  to  provide  for  them 
selves." — Government  patronage  responsible  for  slavery  in 
the  Mississippi  Valley. — Slavery  of  the  early  French. — 
Conclusions  106-119 

VII.  THE  AMERICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 

Objections  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  further  considered. — 
The  South  prohibited  the  African  slave  trade;  the  North 
became  the  trading  monarchs. — Beginnings  of  American 
slavery. — 'Slavery  first  legalized  in  the  North. — Horrors 
on  Northern  slave  ships. — The  unprofitable  Northern  slave 
was  sold  to  Brazil. — 'Northern  and  Southern  legislation 
contrasted. — Northern  and  Southern  morals. — Northern 
courts  and  the  African  slave  trade  down  to  1862. — South 
ern  participation  in  the  trade 120-141 


CONTEXTS. 

PAGES 

VIII.  LEGALITY  OF  THE  FIRST  KANSAS  ELECTIONS. — Their  Relation 

to  the  Civil  Warj  Facts  from  Original  Records. 
The  North  resolved  to  dominate  Kansas  "at  all  hazards"  to 
save  her  political  power. — Nothing  in  the  situation  to  jus 
tify  other  means  than  a  legal  use  of  the  ballot. — The 
North  would  not  accept  the  decision  of  the  ballot. — From 
proposed  the  Northern  movement  passed  to  overt,  armed, 
bloody  rebellion. — Usual  historical  version  of  the  early 
Kansas  affairs. — Its  importance  here. — The  South's  fun 
damental  position  stated. — The  Congressional  investigat 
ing  committee. — Erroneous  claims  in  the  Majority  Report. 
Illegal  votes  do  not  invalidate  an  election  unless  by  their 
rejection  the  result  would  be  changed. — This  rule  applied 
to  the  early  Kansas  elections  leaves  them  valid,  legal,  hon 
est,  Southern  victories. — Synopsis  of  evidence  concerning 
the  first  election. — Conclusions  142-163 

IX.  THE  KANSAS  LEGISLATURE  AND  OVERT  NORTHERN  REBELLION. 

National  importance  of  the  election  of  March  30,  1855. — Its 
results. — Further  analysis  of  the  Majority  Report. — Wit 
nesses  swore  that  free-State  men  voted  the  Southern 
ticket. — Reeder's  letters  admits  Northern  wrong. — This 
election  under  the  supervision  of  Northern  sympathizers, 
thus  reducing  opportunity  for  Southern  fraud. — Errors  of 
standard  authors. — Schouler's  error  concerning  the  elec 
tion  of  the  22d  of  May. — The  Kansas  rebellion  found  its 
source  and  strength  in  the  North. — Origin  and  nature  of 
the  emigrant  aid  movement. — Early  rush  of  Northern  war 
material  to  Kansas. — Historical  credibility  of  witnesses 
whose  story  is  the  basis  of  the  Northern  version. — North 
ern  illegality  in  this  election. — The  rebellion  spread  from 
Massachusetts. — Its  wide  support  in  the  North. — The  ter 
rible  oath  administered  to  the  rebels. — Governor  Shan 
non's  message 164-208 

X.  CUMULATIVE  EVIDENCE  OF  NORTHERN  REBELLION. — Further  Light 

from  Official  Records. 

Northern  writers  attempt  to  suppress  the  fact  of  Northern 
rebellion  against  the  United  States. — The  first  attack 
upon  Lawrence,  or  the  so-called  "border  ruffian  invasion." 
Additional  sources  of  evidence  of  organized,  armed  opposi 
tion. — The  President  of  the  United  States  declared  the 
free-State  movement  rebellion. — United  States  army  offi 
cers  give  unimpeachable  evidence  of  the  organized,  armed 
rebellion  in  defiance  of  the  Presidential  proclamation. — 
The  civil  side  of  the  rebellion  as  given  by  Northern  men 
under  oath. — The  last  of  the  Missouri  raids. — Buford's 
Southern  movement. — Abbott's  high-handed  assumption  of 
authority. — Montgomery  attacks  the  Federal  soldiers  and 
attempts  to  burn  Fort  Scott  under  cover  of  night. — Wo 
men  and  children  imperiled. — The  Northern  rebellion  an 
effort  to  open  new  markets  for  her  manufacturers 200-240 


O  CONTENTS. 

PAGES. 

XL  DEPREDATIONS  AFFECTING  THE  EXISTING  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

The  second  count  of  the  indictment  against  the  North. — Dr. 
Hart's  error. — Fanaticism,  rebellion,  or  dangerous  insan 
ity. — Fugitive  slave  laws  of  the  North. — Dr.  Channing's 
impossible  substitute  for  the  fugitive  slave  law.— Scriptu 
ral  command  and  legal  provisions. — Early  origin  of  the 
"Underground  Railroad." — Losses  by  reason  of 241-254 

XII.  EXACERBATION  AND  PROSCRIPTION. 

Early  origin  of  Northern  insurrectionary  literature. — Its 
effects  in  the  South. — Its  great  extent. — It  prevented 
emancipation. — History  of  the  Northern  treatment  of  the 
negro  discouraged  Southern  emancipation. — Southern 
legislation  further  examined. — Its  liberal  provisions 255-290 

XIII.  UNIVERSAL  HISTORY  OF   SLAVERY. — Disregard  of  its  Lessons 

by  Northern  Abolitionists. 

Slavery  in  England  and  Europe. — Causes  of  their  emancipa 
tion. — Same  laws  of  progress  would  have  removed  South 
ern  slavery  without  war 291-297 

XIV.  CONCLUSIVE  EVIDENCES  OF  IMMINENT  EVIL. — Connection  Be 

tween  Lincoln's  Election  and  Secession;    John  Brotcn 
Representative  of  a  Large  and  Dangerous  Faction. 

The  Republican  party  more  anti-negro  than  anti-slavery. — 
Unreliability  of  some  historic  sources. — The  truth  about 
the  appointment  of  the  special  Kansas  committee. — North 
ern  endorsement  of  Helper's  book. — Harper's  Ferry  raid, 
and  Northern  connection  with , 299-355 

XV.  FROM  HARPER'S  FERRY  TO  THE  END. — The  Lincoln  Republicans 

in  Congress  Abet  the  Treason  in  Kansas. 

The  subversionists  at  the  helm.— T-ight  from  the  records.  .  .  356-364 
NOTES    365  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

DoctorV  Theodore  Clarke  Smith,  until  recently  instructor  in  the 
University  of  Michigan,  in  his  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties  (Har 
vard  Historical  Series),  page  4,  says:  "That  no  attempt  is  here 
made  to  cover  the  entire  field  of  anti-slavery  action,  but  mainly  its 
political  aspects,  must  not  be  understood  to  imply  that  the  politi 
cal  anti-slavery  agitation  was  more  important  than  purely  moral 
and  religious  action;  for  the  appeal  to  the  conscience  was  in  fact 
the  cause  and  condition  of  the  existence  of  anti-slavery  sentiment, 
and  continued  steadily  in  operation  during  the  entire  course  oi 
the  Liberty,  Free  Soil,  and  Eepublican  Parties."  This  is  the  epit 
ome  of  that  contention  which  insists  that  the  ante-bellum  course 
of  the  South  was  so  grossly  immoral  and  irreligious  that  the  Civil 
War  had  its  origin  in  an  effort  to  check  or  overcome  various  move 
ments  which  had  grown  out  of  the  higher  moral  and  religious  con 
victions  peculiar  to  a  large  number  in  the  North.  About  this  con 
tention  as  a  center  cluster  all  the  issues  which  may  be  denominated 
as  the  causes  of  the  war.  Its  correctness  is  of  prime  importance  to 
the  student  who  would  properly  grasp  the  political  history  of  that 
period.  To  teach  that  the  North  had  a  reliable,  safe,  or  worthy 
guide  in  what  is  called  the  "conscience"  of  that  period, — that  opera 
tion  of  moral  faculty  or  religious  nature  which  was  the  "'cause  and 
condition  of  the  anti-slavery  sentiment," — is  believed  to  be  a  funda 
mental  error.  Moral  and  religious  convictions  are  always  caused; 
they  are  results  of  information;  and  so  it  follows  that  if  the  infor 
mation  for  any  reason  be  incorrect,  the  convictions  which  it  in 
duces  are  without  justifiable  foundation,  and  any  action  based 
upon  such  convictions  is  inexcusable  and  unjustifiable.  To  this 
there  is  but  one  exception,  and  that  is  where  a  conviction  is  based 
upon  information  the  truth  or  accuracy  of  which  he  who  holds  such 
conviction  had  no  possible  chance  to  test.  Even  then  there  must 
never  have  been  a  time  when  he  could  have  controlled  his  condition. 
Where  this  is  true  the  right  or  wrong  of  the  act  induced  by  er 
roneous  convictions  is  unaltered,  the  actor  is  merely  relieved  of 
moral  condemnation  or  liability  to  legal  punishment. 


8  INTRODUCTORY. 

Moral  and  religious  fanaticism  has  been  at  the  bottom  of  many 
of  the  great  movements  of  the  world.     The  Seljuk  Turks,  to  give 
an  instance  or  two,  obtained  possession  of  the  Holy  Land  in  1094. 
From  that  time  for  many  years  the  Christians  suffered  great  cruel 
ties  at  the  hands  of  the  conquerors.    But  it  was  the  wildest  of  re 
ligious  fanaticism  that  drove  Peter  the  Hermit  to  arouse  all  France 
and  Italy  to  that  insane  enthusiasm  which  gave  to  the  world  the 
first  Crusaders, — that  great  army  whose  vanguard  robbery  and  deso 
lation  hailed  by  the  destruction  of  nearly  three  thousand  souls. 
However  much  the  Holy  Land  needed  redemption  from  its  bond 
age,  the  Hermit's  method  was  born  of  folly.    Again, — seventy  thou 
sand  Jews  and  Mohammedans  were  massacred  simply  because  they 
rejected  the  Christian  religion ;  yet  "after  this  most  shocking  atro 
city"  the  murderers  sang  hymns  of  praise  to  God !  !      Religious  fa 
naticism  brought  a  stigma  to  the  English  name  in  the  slaughter 
of  three  thousand  five  hundred  Saracean  hostages  by  Richard  Coeur 
de  Lion.    It  was  the  maddest  of  Christian  fanaticism  which  started 
20,000  children  on  a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Land,  only  to  die  on 
the  way  of  hunger  and  fatigue.    In  our  own  America,  even  prior  to 
the  anti-slavery  crusade,  New  England  herself  furnishes  an  instance 
of  the  ridiculous  contradictions  too  often  produced  by  a  perverted 
moral  or  religious  judgment.     In  1763-764  the  General  Assembly 
of  Pennsylvania  was  composed  mostly  of  Quakers.     "While  it  sup- 
ported  from  public  moneys  bodies  of  Christian  Indians,  the  As 
sembly,  owing  to  its  Quaker  majority,  refused  to  sustain  the  hardy 
border  men  in  resisting  incursions  of  the  savages/*  because  many 
of  the  frontier  settlements  were  composed  largly  of  Presbyterians; 
and  between  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Quaker  there  was  bitter  en 
mity.    With  those  Quakers  the  moral  judgment  was  predominated 
by  the  idea  that  a  religious  enemy  is  worthy  of  any  treatment.     So 
the  Quaker  Assembly  allowed  the  white  Presbyterian  to  be  scalped, 
his  cabin  burned,   and  his   family  murdered.     This   produced   a 
movement  bordering  on  insurrection  and  revolution  against  the 
then  capital  of  Pennsylvania  and  its  government,  in  which  the  reb 
els  burned  and  sacked  villages,  and  committed  manslaughter  with 
out  discrimination;  yet  they  cited  Scripture  which  they  claimed 
justified  them,  and  "boasted  of  their  act  as  one  of  proper  retribu 
tive  and  religious  justice." 


INTRODUCTORY. 

It  is  my  firm  conviction  that  the  true  history  of  cause  and  effect 
leading  to  the  sentiment  in  the  North  touching  slavery  in  the 
South,  shows  the  actions  based  upon  it  to  be  of  no  higher  nature 
than  the  many  instances  of  misguided  moral  and  religious  actions 
with  which  history  is  replete.  Hence, — to  group  cause  and  effect  in 
such  a  light  as  seems  to  me  proper  and  natural  so  that  this  may  be 
seen;  to  give  what  I  believe  to  be  the  true  history  of  the  struggle 
in  Kansas  from  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  1854 
down  to  186.1, — a  struggle  which,  in  its  true  relation  to  the  Civil 
War,  like  the  facts  themselves,  has  never  been  fully  presented  or 
rightly  appreciated ;  to  present  the  chief  facts  of  the  slavery  history 
from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  Civil  War  in  an  argumentative 
essay  of  such  a  length  as  will  make  it  serviceable  as  a  suggestive 
guide  more  especially  to  the  younger  students  of  my  own  native 
South;  to  present  the  real  connection  between  Lincoln's  election 
and  Southern  secession, — were  the  motives  which  prompted  my  writ 
ing.  If  I  shall  succeed  in  awaking  a  desire  in  any  mind  which  will 
lead  to  thorough  investigation,  I  shall  have  accomplished  my  pur 
pose. 

'It  readily  will  be  observed  that  I  do  not  attempt  to  make  distinc 
tions  between  Abolition,  Free  Soil,  Liberty,  or  other  anti-slavery 
party  names.  In  my  conviction,  they  are  different  names  for  the  same 
thing.  In  a  study  of  the  purely  local  phases  of  the  anti-slavery 
movement  distinctions  may  properly  be  made.  But  I  make  no  at 
tempt  to  study  parties;  I  give  an  outline  of  what  I  conceive  to  be 
a  movement;  diverse,  it  is  true,  in  its  components,  heterogenous 
in  its  individuality,  yet  each  had  started  from  erroneous  premises, 
and  ajl  had  been  guided  to  unity  of  purpose  through  deductions 
which  did  not  follow. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  leave  unsaid  much  which  might  properly 
have  been  discussed,  and  this  brevity  possibly  has  lead  to  some  ob 
scurity  of  statement.  The  correctness  of  my  conclusions  must  rest 
with  the  fair  and  impartial  in  judgment.  As  to  my  premises,  the 
majority  of  authorities  which  I  have  given  are  readily  obtainable, 
and  even  those  out  of  print  are  to  be  found  in  the  larger  libraries, 
and  so  any  quotation  may  be  readily  verified  or  any  branch  fully 
studied.  I  refer,  in  the  greater  number, of  instances,  to  writers 
who  are  Northern  men  and  who  wrote  from  a  Northern  standpoint. 


10  INTRODUCTORY. 

Many  able  writers  of  the  South  have  done  nobly  in  their  treatment 
of  the  period,  the  historical  data  of  which  I  here  review;  I  fully 
recognize  my  indebtedness  to  them;  yet  I  have  sought  to  prove  my 
fundamental  premises  by  evidence  which  cannot  be  suspected  of 
prejudice  in  favor  of  the  South. 

The  method  of  presenting  a  subject  has  much  to  do  with  the 
impression  left  on  the  mind;  and  this  is  especially  true  of  the  for 
mative  period  of  youthful  mental  development.  By  mere  manner 
of  treatment  the  truth  concerning  the  bearing  of  slavery  on  the 
Civil  War  too  often  has  been  obscured.  Many  of  our  text-books 
by  mere  method  of  presentment  sometimes  leave  the  student  under 
very  erroneous  impressions.  This  fact,,  in  view  of  the  importance 
of  the  subject,  is  a  sufficient  excuse  for  an  honest  effort  to  cooperate 
with  those  who  are  making  faithful  efforts  to  have  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  South  understand  that  the  valor  of  their  fathers 
and  the  sacrifices  of  their  noble  mothers  were  expended  in  a  cause 
the  most  honorable,  and  under  circumstances  where  inactivity  and 
servile  submission  would  have  been  most  disgraceful  to  any  Ameri 
can  similarly  situated. 


Northern  Rebellion  and  Southern 
Secession. 


i. 

THE  FORMATION. 

Preliminary  to  this  investigation  and  as  briefly  as  is  consistent 
with  the  purpose  of  this  monograph,  a  survey  of  certain  questions 
of  American  Constitutional  history  will  be  necessary.  No  matter 
how  much  discussed  these  old  national  landmarks,  they  must  ever 
stand  the  only  reliable  guide  posts  to  a  correct  study  of  later  is 
sues  of  national  importance.  In  a  court  of  history,  similar  to  a 
court  of  legal  justice,  the  inquiry  is,  What  did  the  parties  really 
agree  to  do,  and  in  what  respect  has  each  kept  or  wherein  has  he 
failed  to  keep  his  stipulations  and  obligations  ?  This  is  essentially 
true  in  dealing  with  a  nation's  political  history. 

That  bold  and  spirited  document  which  we  call  the  Declaration 
of  American  Independence,  signed  July  4,  1776,  was  not  intended 
to  be  a  governmental  agreement;  and  generally  it  has  not  been  so 
regarded.  Up  to  that  pregnant  event,  each  colony  had  been  gov 
erned  in  its  own  peculiar  way, — each  differing  more  or  less  from 
every  other.  The  only  thing  politically  in  common,  was  the  al 
legiance  each  owed  the  one  great  head,  the  English  Government. 
Even  this  was  not  the  same  in  degree.  In  the  Declaration  it  was 
asserted  that  "these  United  Colonies  are  and  of  right  ought  to  be 
Free  and  Independent  States'' — united  with  but  one  object — tem 
porarily,  and  in  but  one  particular,  and  that  was  that  each  united 
ivith  all  others  should  keep  up  the  fight  until  England  should  sur 
render  and  acknowledge  their  freedom. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  Eichard  Henry  Lee's  motion, 
the  delegates  assembled  from  and  representing  the  various  colo 
nies,  had  been  a  congress  praying  the  king  to  desist  from  certain 
things  and  to  grant  certain  requests ;  in  the  Declaration  they  agreed 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

unitedly  to  compel  him  to  grant  not  the  requests  heretofore  made, 
but  more,  to  each  of  the  thirteen  political  divisions  separate  free 
dom  and  independence. 

Judge  Thos.  M.  Cooley  says,  "At  the  opening  of  their  struggle 
for  Independence  the  American  States  had  no  common  bond  of 
union  except  such  as  exist  in  a  common  cause  and  common  danger. 
They  were  not  yet  a  nation;  they  were  only  a  loose  confederacy,  and 
no  compact  or  articles  of  agreement  determined  the  duties  of  the 
several  members  to  each  other,  or  to  the  confederacy  as  an  agore- 
gate  of  all." 

Judson  A.  Landon,  LL.D.,  for  some  time  president  of  a  leading 
New  York  college,  in  discussing  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
says,  "The  thought  in  the  mind  of  the  framers  no  doubt  wa&  that 
every  colony  was  free  and  independent  of  the  king.  There  was  no 
need  to  say  independent  of  each  other;  they  had  always  been  so, 
and  the  idea  of  erecting  a  common,  central  government  out  of  all, 
was  not  yet  suggested."1 

An  eminent  scholar  has  sought  to  perpetuate  a  different  view  of 
this  period  of  our  governmental  evolution.  He  is  perhaps  the  most 
extreme  of  his  school.  In  his  Constitutional  History  of  the  United 
States,  Dr.  H.  von  Hoist,  a  German  writer  who  is  extensively  read 
in  our  country,  argues  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  "did 
not  create  thirteen  sovereign  States,"  but  that  the  "United  States 
of  America  became  from  the  fourth  day  of  July,  1776,  a  sovereign 
State  and  a  member  of  the  family  of  nations,  recognized  by  the 
law  of  nations."2  Von  Hoist  has  a  few  followers  in  the  United 
States  who  are  men  of  some  national  reputation.  James  A.  Gar- 
field,  for  instance,  declares:  "No  one  of  the  colonies  was  ever  inde 
pendent  or  sovereign."3 

This  view  follows  the  theory  advanced  by  a  small  minority  of 
Americans  after  the  Declaration;  and  is  the  same  one  which  was 
presented  with  some  vigor  on  up  to  and  through  the  convention 
which  drafted  the  Constitution.  Among  the  delegates  themselves 
were  a  few  who  held  this  doctrine,  of  whom  Alex.  Hamilton,  Wil 
son,  and  Gerry  were  most  uncompromising.  They  contended  that 

aThe  Const.  Hist,  and  Gov.  of  the  U.  S.,  59. 

2Vol.  1,  6-7. 

3Moore,  The  Am.  Cong.,  69. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  13 

the  Declaration  of  Independence  created  a  nation;  that  is,  that 
when  the  colonies  became  independent  of  Great  Britain  they  be 
came  independent  States  not  "individually  but  Unitedly."4  But  cer 
tainly  there  is  one  thing  with  reference  to  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  as  to  which  all  agree,  and  that  is  that  whatever  gov 
ernment  or  condition  resulted,  it  came  to  pass  by  virtue  of  the  will 
of  the  majority  of  the  qualified  citizenship  of  America;  and  hence 
it  follows  that  whatever  construction  that  majority  put  upon  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  whatever  changes  they  made 
thereafter,  and  whatever  instruments  they  ordained  in  evidence  of 
their  will,  must  be  taken  as  conclusive.  If  we  carefully  follow  the 
expressions  of  the  will  of  the  people  down  to  the  adoption  of  the 
first  Constitutional  amendments,  we  cannot  conclude  that  they 
meant  to  construe  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  making  one 
great  single  State  out  of  the  entire  number  of  colonies. 

With  certainty  it  can  be  affirmed  that  the  first  governmental 
union  of  America  for  any  purposes  other  than  the  prosecution  of 
the  war,  began  November  15,  1777,  when  representatives  from  the 
entire  number  of  colonies  entered  into  an  agreement  called  "Ar 
ticles  of  Confederation."  Up  to  this  time  delegates,  in  a  volun 
tary  congressional  capacity,  had  been  struggling  in  a  weak  and 
indifferent  way  at  Philadelphia  to  carry  on  the  war  against  Eng 
land.  Congress,  with  no  real  authority  other  than  the  mere  stress 
of  temporary  conditions,  had  legislated;  but  any  one  of  the  several 
colonial  legislatures,  or  governments,  at  any  time  could,  so  far  as 
its  own  subjects  were  concerned,  have  annulled  the  congressional 
acts.  Some  of  the  colonial  or  State  governments  did  utterly  dis 
regard  the  assumed  authority  of  this  congress.  Before  this  time 
all  the  States  had  adopted  republican  governments,  and  to  these 
respective  governments  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  referred, 
and  by  the  State  governments  amended  and  returned  to  the  so- 
called  congress.  The  amended  document  was  signed  by  the  dele 
gates  of  eight  colonies,  now  some  time  acting  as  States,  July  9, 
1778,  and  by  the  last  and  thirteenth,  March,  1781.  Where  did  the 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  the  contracting  States  now  lie? 
The  document  itself  leaves  no  doubt:  Art,  II.  says,  "Each  State 


*House  Docs.,  v.  112,  No.  529  :  Doc'y  Hist.  Const.,  v.  3,  pp.  165,  244. 


14  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence," — the  first  state 
ment  after  the  Confederation  had  been  given  a  name.5 

Jealous  of  their  separate  independence,  and  to  further  empha 
size  their  separate  sovereignty,  when  the  representatives  of  the  late 
colonies  met  the  peace  agents  of  England  in  1780,  they  required 
England  to  acknowledge  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  each 
State  by  name — absolute  independent  sovereignty  was  given  to 
each  several  State,  and  not  to  the  Confederated  or  United  States. 
Xow  in  connection  with  this,  notice  in  Art.  II.  the  word  "retains"- 
not  "has  surrendered,"  as  it  must  have  been  if  Doctor  von  Hoist 
and  his  school  are  correct, — but  "Each  State  retains" — what?  that 
which  it  obtained  from  England:  "its  sovereignty,  freedom  and 
independence," — and  not  these  only,  but  "and  every  Power,  Ju 
risdiction  and  right  which  is  not  by  this  confederation  expressly 
delegated  to  the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled."  Plainer, 
stronger,  more  cogently  clear  language  has  never  been  written. 
We  need  give  but  one  or  two  extracts  to  show  that  those  who  acted 
and  lived  under  the  Confederation  understood  that  the  separate 
States  were  distinct  sovereignties  each  from  every  other.  Pelatiah 
Webster,  in  1784,  after  the  Confederation  had  been  in  full  opera 
tion  for  three  years,  wrote :  "The  true  end  and  design  of  our  Con 
federation  I  take  to  be  this,  viz.:  To  unite  the  strength  of  the 
separate  States  under  Congress  as  their  general  Head,  and  to  dele 
gate  to  them  the  direction  of  the  operations  of  our  military  and 
naval  forces,  against  the  power  of  Great  Britain.  And  this  I  take 
was  the  general  sense  and  understanding  of  the  States  who  adopted 
the  articles  of  our  federal  union,  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  ar 
ticles  themselves  supports  this  opinion. 

"The  form  of  government  planned  by  Congress,  and  adopted  by 
the  states,  is  the  only  form  we  could  adopt  under  our  circum 
stances  :  And  the  honor  and  dignity  of  Congress,  as  a  private  citi 
zen,  I  am  determined  to  support,  as  much  as  the  sovereignty,  free 
dom  and  independence  of  the  states "8 

President  Monroe,  who  was  in  the  full  possession  of  his  vigorous 
intellect  during  all  the  formative  period,  and  who  showed  Jns_wis- 

»2  Woolsey,  Pol.  Sc..  243:  also  Frothlngham.  of  Mass.   (1899),  The  Rise  of  the 
HI*,'  Liberty  Documents,  217.     To  the  same  effect  see  Hamilton's  Works. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  15 

_jdom  by  securing  to  the  country  the  vast  Louisiana  purchase,  and 
who  was  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  purest  and  cleanest  of  men, 
speaking  of  the  origin  of  American  institutions,  said  that  two 
things  are  evident:  "The  first  is,  that  in  wresting  the  power,  or 
what  is  called  the  sovereignty,  from  the  crown,  it  passed  directly  to 
the  people.  The  second,  that  it  passed  directly  to  the  people  of 
each  colony,  and  not  to  the  people  of  all  the  colonies  in  the  aggre 
gate — to  thirteen  distinct  communities,  and  not  to  one."7 

Justice  Chase,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  in  the  case  of  Ware  vs.  Hylton  (3  Dallas,  224)  said,  "I 
consider  this  a  declaration,  not  that  the  united  colonies,  jointly,  in 
a  collective  capacity,  were  independent  states,  £c.,  but  that  each 
of  them  was  a  sovereign  and  independent  state,  that  is,  that  each  of 
them  had  a  right  to  govern  itself  by  its  own  authority  and  its  own 
laws,  without  any  control  from  any  other  power  on  earth." 

After  living  under  the  first  governmental  agreement,  The  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation,  for  about  nine  years,  on  the  17th  day  of 
September,  1787,  a  body  composed  of  fort}-  delegates,  representing 
the  thirteen  States,  "in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union/' 
drew  up  a  document  which  they  called  "The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  of  America."  Its  last  article  provided  that  the  "rati 
fications  of  the  conventions  of  nine  states"  must  be  had  before 
this  document  should  become  the  law,  or  become  a  new  govern 
mental  contract  to  take  the  place  of  the  then  binding  "Articles  of 
Confederation."  Let  us  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  govern 
ment  under  the  Confederation  was  "inadequate" — the  most  convinc 
ing  admission  of  its  want  of  sovereign  independence.  It  did  not 
claim  to  have  the  power,  and  Congress  made  no  attempt  to  coerce 
any  individual  State  to  comply  with  its  mandates.  Many  of  the 
States  refused  to  pay  their  pro  rata  of  the  assessments  against 
them  by  Congress  and  performed  various  individual  acts  of  sover 
eign  independence.  Among  the  acts  which  indicated  a  conscious 
ness  of  independent  sovereignty  of  the  individual  States,  and  that 
indicated  the  "Union"  little  more  than  a  confederated  league,  was 
the  sending  of  delegates  who  met  at  Annapolis  September  11,  1786, 
when  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  frhad,  in  substance, 
and  nearly  in  the  same  terms,"  directed  their  representatives  "to 

TXiles's  Register,  xxii.  366. 


jtf  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

t«ke  into  consideration  the  trade  and  Commerce  of  the  United 
States,  to  consider  how  far  an  uniform  System  in  their  commercial 
intercourse  and  regulations  might  be  necessary  to  their  common 
interests  and  permanent  harmony,  and  to  report  to  the  several 
States,  such  _n  Act  relative  to  this  great  Object,,  as  when  unani 
mously  ratified  ~by  them  [italics  in  original],  would  enable  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled  effectually  to  provide  for  the 
same."8  Delaware  and  New  Jersey  had  given  much  the  same  in 
structions.  From  start  to  finish  the  new  Constitution  purported 
to  do  no  more  than  form  a  "closer  union." 

If  the  sovereignty  of  a  nation,  the  states  in  which  had  been  de 
pendencies  with  only  the  right  to  control  certain  local  affairs,  had 
been,  in  esse  as  the  American  government  at  the  time  of  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  there  would  have  been  some  synchronous 
ratification  of  this  fundamental  law  by  the  whole  people.  The 
fact  that  the  delegates  who  prepared  the  Constitution  referred  their 
action  to  the  several  States,  and  that  the  action  of  the  States  as 
individuals  became  final — the  body  which  drew  and  recommended 
this  document  having  finally  adjourned  before  any  State  acted 
upon  their  recommendation,  shows  that  each  State  was  still  the 
arbiter  of  its  own  destiny.9 

Hence  the  question  which  has  been  so  variously  and  widely  dis 
cussed,  is,  What  became  of  State  sovereignty  after  the  Constitution 
took  the  place  of  the  old  Confederation  ?  Under  the  Confederation, 
as  we  have  seen,  if  English  words  means  anything,  if  the  early  writ 
ings  of  the  fathers  and  the-  political  history  of  our  country  mean  any 
thing  in  the  world,  the  States  most  certainly  reserved  their  freedom, 
sovereignty  and  independence;10  in  ratifying  the  Constitution  did 
they  forever  surrender  their  sovereign  independence?  Or,  did  they 
agree  that  sovereignty  should  lie  dormant  until  self-preservation  or 
the  protection  of  homes,  kindred  and  property  should  demand  its  re 
call?  History,  not  theory,  answers  our  questions.  The  interpre 
tation  of  the  instrument,  as  Judge  Cooley  says,  must  take  place 
in  the  light  of  the  facts  which  preceded  and  led  to  it ;  in  the  light 

8Doc.  Hist.  Const.,  I.,  2. 

9See  James  Bryce's  American  Com.  for  an  Englishman's  view. 

10Wilson,  Division  and  Reunion,  45-6. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  17 

of  contemporaneous  history,  and  of  what  was  said  by  the  actors, 
and  the  ends  they  had  in  view/'11 

Just  as  a  lawyer  prepares  a  contract  between  parties,  and  passes 
it  to  them  as  competent  parties  to  read,  come  to  a  mutual  under 
standing  as  to  its  meaning,  sign  and  deliver,  thereby  making  it 
their  contract,  binding  in  no  other  respect  than  each  mutually 
understood  it;  so,  the  document  called  the  Constitution  passes  to 
the  several  States  for  their  mutual  interpretation  and  ratification 
in  the  light  of  their  common  understanding.  Hence  we  must  read 
the  Constitution  in  the  light  of  the  recorded  statements  made  by 
these  several  sovereign  parties,  when  they  came  to  ratify  or  accept 
it,  before  we  can  correctly  determine  what  the  States  understood 
they  were  doing,  or  what  they  meant  to  do.  If  all  of  them  under 
stood  the  same  thing  touching  any  one  point  or  question,  and  so 
recorded,  or  if  any  given  interpretation  made  at  the  time  of  the 
formation  of  the  Constitution  was  accepted  by  all,  this  record  or 
history  becomes  the  guide,  and  not  merely  this,  but  a  part  of  the 
contract.  Just  as  written  statements,  made  at  the  time  and  by 
the  parties,  of  the  mutual  understanding  of  the  parties  thereto, 
touching  an  instrument  prepared  by  a  lawyer,  would  be  the  in 
terpretation  which  would  be  accepted  in  common  judicial  admin 
istration,  the  lawyer's  understanding  of  it  having  nothing  what 
ever  to  do  with  it;  so  are  we  to  understand  the  utterances  of  the 
ratifying  bodies  of  the  several  States  in  entering  into  a  constitu 
tional  contract  "in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union."  In  each 
case  there  was  a  meeting  of  the  minds  of  the  contracting  parties, 
touching  a  lawful  subject  matter,  based  upon  a  sufficient  and  good 
consideration,  found,  in  the  national  compact,  in  the  happiness 
and  better  protection  of  each  State;  and  their  competency  grew 
out  of  the  fact  that  they  acted  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  guaranteed  to  them  their  independent  sovereignty.  I  am 
aware  that  in  the  debates  upon  the  Constitution  it  is  often  called 
the  "organic  law,"  and  is  sometimes  so  spoken  of  yet.  Call  it  what 
we  may,  it  must  have  had  its  beginning  in  an  agreement.  Prof. 
Joel  Parker,  formerly  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  New  Hampshire,  while  professor  of  law  in  Harvard  Law  School, 
July,  1861,  said  that  the  Constitution  "is  not  itself  an  agreement, 

"Hist.  Mich.,  346. 
2 


18  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

but  is  the  result  of  an  agreement."15  In  1833  Webster  said,  "The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  founded  in  or  upon  the  consent 
of  the  people,  may  be  said  to  rest  on  compact  [contract]  or  con 
sent;  but  it  is  not  itself  the  compact,  but  its  result."13  Very  well, 
then,  tvhat  was  the  agreement  or  compact?  What  did  each  State 
agree  should  become  of  her  sovereignty?  We  find  our  answer  in 
the  recorded  words  and  the  acts  of  the  several  State  bodies  at  the 
time  of  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  records  of  the 
constructive  period  we  find  the  mutual  understanding  of  the  States 
on  this  point — i.  e.,  the  disposition  of  their  respective  sovereignty. 
The  records  of  the  ratifying  conventions,  and  the  unofficial  docu 
ments,  together  with  the  language  of  the  instrument  itself,  answer 
our  question  and  put  the  matter  beyond  all  theory;  jurisprudence, 
constitutional  law,  common  sense,  know  no  other  way  to  determine 
such  a  question. 

The  several  delegates  who  prepared  the  Constitution  turned  the 
document  over  to  Congress  which  was  sitting  under  the  little  power 
given  by  the  Confederation.  In  the  letter  submitting  to  Congress 
this  final  agreement  of  the  convention,  that  body  said,  "It  is  ob 
viously  impractical  in  the  federal  government  of  these  States,  to 
secure  all  rights  of  independent  sovereignty  to  each,  and  yet  pro 
vide  for  the  interest  and  safety  of  all:  Individuals  entering  into 
society,  must  give  up  a  share  of  liberty  to  preserve  the  rest/'14  This 
shows  that  whatever  had  been  the  theories  of  a  minority  of  the 
framing  body,  the  final  draft  of  the  new  governmental  compact 
had  been  reached  upon  the  basis  (1)  that  each  State  was  an  indi 
vidual  sovereign  voluntarily  entering  the  new  organization; 
(2)  that  as  States  they  each  gave — did  not  receive,  but  gave — ex 
istence  to  and  surrendered  under  certain  conditions  part  of  their 
sovereignty  to  the  Federal  Government.  Following  the  new  Con 
stitution  until  it  finally  became  the  expression  of  the  people,  if  we 
find  that  they  agree  that  this  is  their  status  and  that  they  so  un 
derstand  the  Constitution  to  declare,*  then,  since  the  prime  source 
of  all  sovereignty  has  spoken,  all  theories  to  the  contrary  are  but 
idle  tales. 


124  Amer.  Const.  Hist.,  176. 

"3  Webster's  Works,  468. 

"House  Docs.,  v.  Ill  :  Doc.  Hist.  Const.,  v.  2,  p.  1. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  19 

Congress  had  no  power  to  act,  and  so  the  matter  was  referred  to 
the  several  respective  States.  This  of  itself  was  an  admission  that 
the  States  were  independent  sovereigns  associated  merely  in  a 
league  for  their  mutual  protection  and  kindred  interests,,  with 
power  to  come  into  the  new  governmental  agreement,  or  forever 
remain  independently  out  of  it.  Had  any  one  or  more  of  the  States 
refused  to  have  ratified  the  new  instrument,  after  it  had  been  rati 
fied  by  the  required  number,  no  one  could  have  insisted  successfully 
that  the  new  Union  had  a  right  to  force  the  refusing  State  to  join 
the  Constitutional  Union.  After  nine  States  had  ratified  the  Con 
stitution,  the  Confederacy  was  null,  void,  dead, — any  State  not 
having  ratified  the  Constitution  remained  a  separate,  sovereign, 
lone  republic. 

The  debates  at  the  ratifying  conventions  are  helpful  only,  it  was 
the  result  of  the  debating,  the  ratification,  which  became  the  con 
tract.  Before  the  ratification,  and  for  years  after  answered  in  the 
negative  North  and  South,  the  paramount  question  was,  Do  we 
forever  lose  State  sovereignty  ?  Or,  Did  the  ratification  of  the  sev 
eral  States  leave  their  sovereignty  merely  dormant?  to  which  for 
a  "great  period  the  affirmative  was  the  most  general  answer.  I 
maintain  that  there  were  two  things  which  the  ratifying  ordi 
nances  emphasized:  (1)  State  sovereignty  shall  lie  dormant; 
( 2 )  Conditions  under  which  it  may  be  used  or  recalled. 

Delaware  was  the  first  to  ratify  the  Constitution  and  thus  sig 
nify  her  willingness  to  enter  the  new  Union.  No  people  believed 
more  or  practiced  more  the  right  of  secession  for  cause  than  did 
the  inhabitants  of  this  little  republic.  She  had  formerly  been  a 
member  of  the  semi-republic  founded  by  Pcnn.  In  1691,  the 
two  lower  counties  of  Pennsylvania  became  disgruntled  at  some 
act  of  the  general  assembly15  and  Delaware  seceded, — because  she 
believed  that  the  interests  of  her  people  demanded  secession.  In 
1692  England  interfered  and  reconsolidated  Delaware  with  other 
Xew  England  colonies.  Again  in  1702  Delaware  refused  to  accept 
the  new  frame  of  government  which  Penn  had  returned  to  estab 
lish,  and  she  insisted  on  a  second  secession.  While  she  left  no 
statement  similar  to  other  ratifying  bodies  in  other  States,  es 
pecially  in  the  light  of  her  understanding  of  the  rights  of  a  peo- 

15Ridpath,  Hist.  U.  S.,  213.    - 


20  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

pie  to  protect  their  local  interests,  the  fact  that  she  finally  came 
under  the  first  of  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  which 
were  made  by  the  request  of  those  States  which  thought  the  in 
strument  in  itself  did  not  state  as  clearly  as  it  should  some  points, 
not  only  makes  her  a  party  to  the  contract  which  became  final  on 
acceptance  of  the  Constitution  and  first  amendments,  but  leaves 
no  reasonable  doubt  that  she  did  not  mean  under  all  conditions 
forever  to  surrender  her  right  to  exercise  independent  sovereignty. 

Pennsylvania  was  the  second  state  to  ratify  the  Constitution  and 
the  first  whose  ratifying  convention  met.  At  the  time  she  was  the 
second  State  in  the  Confederacy  in  population;  Philadelphia  was 
sacred  as  the  seat  of  the  earliest  Congress ;  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence  had  been  proclaimed  within  her  gates,  and  there  the  al 
liance  with  France  in  1778  had  been  ratified.  The  Articles  of 
Confederation  had  been  put  into  effect  from  within  her  limits; 
and  sitting  within  her  walls  the  convention  had  scarcely  adjourned 
which  drew  the  Constitution.  Most,  of  the  people  had  kept  in 
formed  as  to  the  work  of  the  Hite  convention,  and  it  was  understood 
that  a  government  of  specifically  enumerated  powers  was  being 
formed.  Wilson,  the  only  member  of  the  ratifying  convention 
who  had  been  a  member  of  the  framing  convention — a  man  who 
"had  read  every  publication  of  importance,  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  that  had  appeared  since  the  Constitution  was  published/' 
and  whose  "legal  historical  knowledge  was  extensive  and  accu 
rate,"18  assured  the  delegates  that  the  Constitution  recognized  that 
"the  supreme  power  resides  in  the  people,"  and  that  they  could 
delegate  a  part,  as  they  would  in  ratifying  the  Constitution,  to  the 
Federal  government,  while  a  part  remained  with  the  respective 
States,  and  that  the  delegated  portion  could  be  resumed  at  will. 
But  he  insisted  that,  "The  great  object  now  to  be  attended  to,  in 
stead  of  disagreeing  about  who  shall  possess  the  supreme  power, 
is,  to  consider  whether  the  present  arrangement  is  well  calculated 
to  promote  and  secure  the  tranquility  and  happiness  of  our  com 
mon  country."17 

But  a  very  respectable  number  of  the  delegates  were  not  satisfied 
with  Wilson's  assurances,  and  felt  that  the  instrument  itself  should 


16Curtis,  Const.  TJ.  S.,  p.  521. 
"Elliot,  Debates,  v.  2,  502. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  21 

be  more  specific.  Accordingly  a  meeting  of  representatives  from 
thirteen  counties  and  the  city  of  Philadelphia  was  convened  Sep 
tember  3,  1788,  which,  after  deliberation,  among  other  things 
passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  the  Constitution  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  expressly  declare  that  "all  the  rights  of  sover 
eignty  which  are  not  by  the  said  Constitution  expressly  and  plainly 
vested  in  the  Congress,  shall  be  deemed  to  remain  with,  and  shall 
be  exercised  by,  the  several  States  in  the  Union,  according  to  their 
respective  constitutions."18 

When  Massachusetts  came  to  sign  the  great  compact  she  thought 
that  in  future  years  there  might  be  some  question  as  to  her  sover 
eignty,  she  felt  that  there  might  a  contingency  arise  jeopardizing 
the  right  to  protect  her  people  as  against  the  world  or  any  pa,rt 
thereof,  and  so  in  no  uncertain  terms  she  put  her  interpretation  of 
the  Constitution  upon  record,  and  declared  that  that  instrument 
must  be  amended,  "First,  That  it  be  explicitly  declared  that  all 
Powers  not  expressly  delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Constitution  are 
reserved  to  the  several  States  to  be  by  them  exercised."1'  No  State 
in  the  Union  had  a  more  jealous  regard  for  her  independent  sover 
eignty  than  did  Massachusetts;  constantly  this  is  shown  by  the 
language  of  the  members  of  her  ratifying  convention.  For  in 
stance,  Mr.  Bodman  reaffirmed  that  "the  sovereignty  of  the  States 
remains  with  them."20  Tacitly  and  verbally  this  was  accepted  by 
the  majority  as  the  correct  interpretation;  and  the  "amendments 
and  alterations"  which  she  demanded,  were  declared  necessary  "to 
remove  fears  and  quiet  apprehensions  of  many  of  the  good  people 
of  this  Commonwealth  and  more  effectually  guard  against  an  un 
due  administration  of  the  Federal  Government."23 

When  New  York  came  to  ratify  or  accept  the  Constitution  and 
thus  enter  the  Union,  she,  too,  was  careful  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to 
what  she  understood  the  contract  to  be.  Especially  was  she  care 
ful  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  what  sfie  was  doing  with  her  sovereignty. 
Her  people  through  their  ratifying  convention  declared,  "That  the 
Powers  of  Government  may  be  resumed  by  the  People,  whensoever 


18Elliot,  v.  2,  p.  545. 

19Ho.  Doc.,  v.  Ill :  Doc.  Hist.  Const,  v.  2,  p.  94. 

20Elliot,  Debates,  v.  2,  p.  60. 

21Ho.  Docs.  :  Ib.,  93. 


22  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

it  shall  become  necessary  to  their  Happiness;  that  every  Power, 
Jurisdiction  and  right,,  which  is  not  by  the  said  Constitution  clearly 
delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  or  the  departments 
of  the  Government  thereof,,  remains  to  the  People  of  the  several 
States,  or  to  their  respective  State  Governments  to  whom  they  may 
have  granted  the  same;  And  that  those  clauses  in  the  said  Consti 
tution,  which  declare  that  Congress  shall  not  have  or  exercise  cer 
tain  Powers,  do  not  imply  that  Congress  is  entitled  to  any  powers 
not  given  by  the  said  Constitution ;  but  such  clauses  are  to  be  con 
strued  either  as  exceptions  to  certain  specified  Powers,  or  as  in 
serted  merely  for  greater  caution."25  They  also  insisted  that  there 
must  be  no  delay  in  the  required  amendments.23  Their  plain  lan 
guage  equally  with  that  of  Massachusetts,  uttered  respectively  at 
the  time  each  was  ratifying  and  interpreting  the  contract  into 
which  she  was  entering  with  the  other  States,  shows  most  con 
clusively  that  the  central  government  which  was  being  created 
was  a  confederation  whose  delegated  powers  came  not  from  the 
whole  people  as  one  sovereign  unit,  but  "from  the  people  of  the 
several  States"  each  as  distinct  in  its  individuality  as  is  Australia 
from  Cuba.  Hamilton,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  convention 
which  drafted  the  Constitution,  and  who  in  that  convention  had 
advocated  the  annihilation  of  the  State  governments,24  said,  "The 
State  governments  possess  inherent  advantages,  which  will  ever 
give  them  an  influence  and  ascendency  over  the  national  govern 
ment,  and  will  forever  preclude  the  possibility  of  federal  encroach 
ments.  That  their  liberties,  indeed,  can  be  subverted  by  the  fed 
eral  head,  is  repugnant  to  every  rule  of  political  calculation."21 
The  sovereign  commonwealth  of  Ehode  Island  meant  to  make  as 
surance  doubly  sure.  Her  declarations,  and  the  relation  she  main 
tained  during  the  long  interval  between  the  dissolution  of  the  Con 
federacy,  upon  which  she  resumed  undisputed  control  of  all  her 
sovereign  powers,  attested  the  original  sovereign  independence  of 
each  State;  and  her  history  helps  us  to  see  that  when  the  nine 
States  had  ratified  the  Constitution,  those  remaining  were  absolved 


22Ho.  Docs.,  v.  Ill  :  Doc.  Hist.  Const.,  v.  2,  p.  191. 
23Elliot,  Debates,  v.  2.  414. 
2*Ho.  Docs.,  v.  Ill  :  No.  529,  pp.  22,  129. 
"Elliot,  Debates,  v.  2,  239. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

from  all  allegiance  to  the  others,  and  stood  out  as  on  the  day  Eng 
land  severally  acknowledged  their  independence,  sovereign  repub 
lics  over  which  those  States  which  had  formed  the  Union  had  no 
jurisdiction.  The  conduct  of  Rhode  Island  led  her  legislature  to 
feel  the  weakness  of  their  single  and  unsupported  position.  In 
1789,  "at  the  request  and  in  behalf  of  the  General  Assembly/'  Sep 
tember  session,  John  Collins,  the  governor,  transmitted  "to  the 
President,  the  Senate,  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
eleven  United  States  of  America,"  an  offer  to  continue  trade  re 
lations.  They  assured  the  United  States  of  their  "disposition  to 
cultivate  mutual  harmony  and  friendly  intercourse."  They  recog 
nized  their  State  "to  be  a  handful,"  and  said,  we  "stand,  as  it  were 
alone."  Speaking  of  not  joining  the  Union,  they  said,  "That  we 
have  not  seen  our  way  clear  to  do  it,  consistent  with  our  ideas  of 
the  principles  upon  which  we  are  embarked  together,  has  also 
given  pain  to  us:  we  have  no  doubt  but  that  we  might  thereby 
avoid  present  difficulties,  but  we  have  apprehended  future  mischief. 
The-  people  of  this  State,  from  its  first  settlement,  have  been  ac 
customed  and  strongly  attached  to  a  democratic  form  of  Govern 
ment We  are  induced,  to  hope  that  we  shall  not  be  alto 
gether  considered  as  foreigners,  having  no  particular  affinity  or 
connection  with  the  United  States ;  but  that  trade  and  commerce, 
upon  which  the  prosperity  of  this  State  much  depends,  will  be  pre 
served  as  free  and  open  between  this  and  the  United  States,  as  our 
different  situations,  at  present,  can  possibly  admit."2* 

President  Washington  communicated  this  to  the  Senate,  Sept. 
2G,  1789,  at  the  first  session  of  the  first  Congress.  Upon  the  of 
ficial  records  the  title  of  the  transaction  is,  "Rhode  Island  desires 
to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  the  United  States."21 

However,  Rhode  Island  had  waited  and  debated  until  rebellion 
grew  rampant  in  her  very  midst.  Providence  and  New  Port  se 
ceded  from  the  Commonwealth.  These  were  the  first  acts  of  seces 
sion  after  the  American  Independence.  These  local  difficulties 
were  finally  adjusted,  and  the  last  of  the  original  thirteen,  on  May 
29,  1790,  she  entered  the  American  Constitutional  Union.  But  first 
she  said,  We  enter  the  Union  with  the  understanding  "That  the 


26Am.  State  Papers;  Miscl..  v.  1,  p.  10. 
.  State  Papers  :  Miscl..  v.  1,  p.  9. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

powers  of  government  may  be  resumed  by  the  people  whenever  it 
shall  become  necessary  for  their  happiness :— That  the  rights  of  the 
States  respectively,  to  nominate  and  appoint  all  State  officers,  and 
every  other  power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  by  the  said 
Constitution  clearly  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
or  to  the  departments  of  government  thereof,  remain  to  the  peo 
ple  of  the  several  States,  or  their  respective  State  Governments  to 
whom  they  may  have  granted  the  same/725  In  other  declarations 
she  adopted  the  phraseology  that  had  been  used  by  New  York.  She 
pointed  out  that  the  language  of  the  Constitution  itself  might, 
some  day,  be  misconstrued,  and  hence  she  insisted  that  additions 
be  made  to  it  and  specified  that,  "1st  the  United  States  shall  guar 
antee  to  each  State  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  and 
every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right  which  is  not  by  this  Consti 
tution  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States/'29 

New  Hampshire  felt  a  deep  sense  of  danger  from  federal  en 
croachments,  and  set  forth  her  views  in  language  similar  to  that 
used  by  other  New  England  States,  affirming  that  "all  powers  not 
expressly  and  particularly  Delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Constitu 
tion  are  reserved  to  the  several  States  to  be  by  them  exercised/'30 
When,  on  June  25th,  1788,  Virginia,  by  her  representatives  who 
exercised  her  sovereign  power,  in  the  premises,  adopted  a  form  of 
ratification  and  a  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  the  People,  "and 
ordered  the  same  to  be  transmitted  and  recommended  to  Congress," 
she  gave  the  other  States  and  the  world  notice  of  her  understand 
ing  of  the  Constitutional .  contract.  Among  other  things  she  de 
clared  and  made  known  that  the  powers  granted  the  central  gov 
ernment  might  be  resumed  by  her  people  "whenever  the  same  shall 
be  perverted  to  their  injury  or  oppression  and  every  power  not, 
granted  remains  with  them  and  at  their  will."  That  it  may  fully 
be  seen  that  by  the  words  "may  be  resumed  by  them,"  she  meant 
that  the  people  of  each  State  might  resume  sole  and  independent 
sovereignty  when  they  respectively  deemed  that  individual  inter 
ests  demand  such  a  step,  I  give  the  following  which  was  one  of  the 
amendments  which  Virginia  said  must  be  made  before  her  ratifi- 

2SHouse  Docs.,  v.  Ill,  No.  529  :  Doc.  Hist.  Const.,  v.   2,  p.  311. 
2i'Ib.,  316. 
30Ib.,  142. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  25 

cation  would  be  binding  upon  her.  She  said  that  the  words  which 
she  suggested,  or  others  of  the  same  import,  must  be  added  to  the 
Constitution,  to-wit:  "That  each  State  in  the  Union  shall,  RE- 
SPECTIVELY,  retain  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right  which 
is  not  by  this  Constitution  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  the  Departments  of  the  Federal  Government."31 
Similar  declarations  were  made  by  several  of  the  other  States.  Xo 
language  could  have  been  found  more  clearly  to  declare  the  inde 
pendent  sovereignty  of  the  respective  States;  and,  though  all  were 
agreed  upon  the  point,  the  Northern  States  were  more  emphatic, 
as  will  be  noticed,  that  when  necessary  to  their  happiness,  or  that 
of  any  one — "respectively" — each  for  itself  should  receive  back  full 
control  of  all  the  powers  of  the  most  absolute  sovereign.  It  must 
not  be  overlooked  that  these  States  ratified  the  Constitution  in  full 
faith  that  the  several  suggested  amendments  would  be  made  with 
out  delay,  and  that  this  was  actually  done  in  the  first  several  amend 
ments  which  are  yet  a  part  of  our  Constitution.  As  is  often  pointed 
out,  especially  by  Southern  writers,32  it  was  believed  and  intended 
by  all  the  contracting  parties  that  these  amendments  most  cer- 
tainjy  preserved  to  each  State,  to  be  by  it  exercised — necessarily 
by  it  exercised  since  such  arbitrary  exercise  was  the  very  backbone 
of  State  sovereignty — the  right  to  take  whatever  and  all  steps  the 
protection  and  preservation  of  its  peace  and  happiness  demanded. 

Nowhere  did  any  State  name  her  sovereignty  as  one  of  the 
granted  or  surrendered  powers;  and  likewise  several  other  powers 
and  right  had  not  been  named  as  granted,  and  so  all  thought  that 
the  language  of  the  Ninth  Art.  of  the  Amendments  preserved  to 
each  State  all  that  it  had  demanded  when  that  amendment  de 
clared,  "The  powers  not  delegated"  are  "reserved  to  the  States,  or 
the  people"  [of  the  respective  States].  Had  any  one  State  alone, 
Rhode  Island  for  instance,  said,  "The  powers  of  government  may 
be  resumed  by  the  people  of  the  respective  States  whenever  it  may 
be  necessary  to  their  happiness,"  and  nothing  in  the  Constitution 
disputed  this  proposition,  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  she  reserved 
the  right  to  resume  absolute  sovereignty;  it  remained  a  dormant 


31Pulliam,    The  Constitutional   Laws   of   Virginia,   39.   40,    45  ;   Elliot,    Debates, 
v.  3. 

32Conf.  Mil.   Hist.,  v.  5,  32. 


26  XORTHEKX  KEBELLION  AND  SOUT11EKN  SECESSION. 

power  to  be  awaked  at  her  touch.  She  says  she  does  not  delegate 
her  sovereignty  to  the  United  States,  and  when  in  the  light  of  this 
fact  and  by  her  request  the  other  States  agree  to  the  Ninth  and 
Tenth  Amendments,  it  becomes  clear  that  they  had  accepted  Ehode 
Island's  interpretation  and  understanding,  which  made  the  doc 
trine  therefore  binding  upon  all  This  would  be  true  even  if  the 
other  States  had  said  nothing  in  their  ratifying  ordinances;  but 
when  from  these  ordinances  themselves  it  is  seen  that  the  other 
States  already  held  the  same  view,  had  the  same  desire,  it  is  doubly 
clear  that  there  was  a  meeting  in  mutual  understanding  of  the 
minds  of  all  the  contracting  parties, — thus  filling  every  requisite 
of  a  contract  of  the  highest  type  known  to  civilization.33 

We  then  see  that  of  the  questions  which  each  of  the  States 
thought  were  settled  beyond  doubt — and  thought  so  nearly  to  the 
Civil  War — the  foremost  was  that  the  present  Constitution  did  not 
take  from  any  State  its  independent  sovereignty,  its  right  to  with 
draw  from  the  Union  at  any  time  when  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  the  State  demanded  such  action.  It  must  be  remembered,  it 
may  be  repeated,  that  independent  sovereignty  implied — means  as 
its  very  essence,  in  fact — that  the  sovereign  may  decide  for  itself 
what  is  best  and  expedient.  The  conditions  for  the  resumption  of 
full  and  active  authority  were  not  to  be  settled  \)j  a  majority  of 
States — each  State  understood  that  she  alone  wTas  her  own  judge. 
1  do  not  stop  to  discuss  whether  or  not  this  was  best.  Nor  need  I 
stop  to  say  that,  while  all  constitutions  must  be  elastic  and  subject 
to  progressive  interpretation  to  meet  unforeseen  conditions, — no  in 
terpretation  can  nullify  a  plain  provision;  more  especially  is  this 
true  when  the  object  or  condition  was  seen  and  recognized  at  the 
time  the  provision  was  made  a  part  of  the  agreement,  and  which 
object  or  condition  continued  to  exist  at  any  given  time.  The  de 
bates  and  close  votes  in  many  of  the  States  show  clearly  that  not 
one  of  the  thirteen  would  have  ratified  the  Constitution,  thus  by  so 
doing  entering  the  present  Union,  had  the  people  of  any  State 
thought  they  were  getting  into  a  compact  from  which  they  con  Id 
not  withdraw.  During  all  this  formative  period  of  this  Union  th$- 


33See  a  clear  statement  of  these  doctrines  made  by  Georgia  in  her  protest 
against  the  tariff  in  1828,  in  McDonald's  Select  Doc.,  234;  also  see  Wilson's 
Division  and  Reunion,  45-6. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  27 

people  of  the  several  States  placed  themselves  upon  the  position — 
then  neither  doubted  nor  disputed  by  any  State — that  as  States 
they  were  originally  sovereign;  that  the  Federal  Government,,  or 
confederated  Union,  had  nothing  but  what  the  States  had  given 
it  or  should  thereafter  give  it;  and  the  concessions  made  to  it  they 
were  careful  to  name, — the  Ninth  and  Tenth  Amendments  bind 
ing  alike  upon  all,  emphasizing  this  fact, — thus  retaining  to  each 
State  the  legal  and  moral  right  to  resume  its  sovereignty  whenever 
the  Union  Government  made  a  breach  of  its  trust. 

From  the  very  earliest  cases  which  came  before  it  involving  a 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  the  Supreme  Court  supported  the 
views  here  re-stated.  One  of  the  earliest  was  the  case  of  McCulloch 
vs.  the  State  of  Maryland,34  in  which  was  involved  the  right  of  Mary 
land  to  pass  a  law  imposing  a  tax  on  the  Bank  of  the  United  States, 
Chief-Justice  Marshall  dePrvered  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
court.  This  opinion  began  by  saying,  "In  the  case  now  to  be  de 
termined,  the  defendant,  a  sovereign  State,  denies  the  obligation 
of  a  law  enacted  by  the  legislature  of  the  Union."  This  was  in 
1819,  and  is  interesting  for  many  reasons;  but  as  to  the  point  be 
fore  us,  it  shows  that  the  States  were  regarded  as  sovereign  by  the 
highest  tribunal  in  the  land,  and  that  they  so  continued  except  as 
to  so  much  of  that  original  sovereign  independence  as  they  had 
voluntarily  entrusted  to  the  Union, — -and  that  by  the  best  lawyers 
who  were  contemporaneous  with  the  Constitution  itself.  The  court 
points  out  clearly  that  originally  the  States  were  sole,  independent 
sovereigns,  and  "that  the  powers  of  the  [Federal]  government  are 
limited" ;  and  the  court  holds  that  so  long  as  the  Government  pur 
sues  a  legitimate  end  and  "is  within  the  scope  of  the  Constitution 
and  all  means  which  are  appropriate,  which  are  plainly  adapted  to 
that  end,  which  are  not  prohibited,  but  consistent  with  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  are  constitutional." 


344  Wheaton,  400.      The  opinion  in  this  case  is  in  part  given  in  Hill's  Liberty 
Documents,  312. 


II. 

INSTANCES  OF  ASSERTED  STATE 
SOVEREIGNTY. 

After  the  Constitution  had  been  ratified  and  had  supplanted  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  the  first  political  parties  were  a  result 
of  divergent  views  of  construction.  The  Democratic  party,  led 
by  Thomas  Jefferson,  held  that  "sovereignty  could  exist  alone  in 
its  source";  and  that  the  people  of  the  respective  States  were  this 
source;  and  that  the  people  could  act  only  through  conventional 
power;  that  the  Federal  Government  was  a  municipality,  the  crea 
ture  of  the  people  of  the  several  State  organizations;  that  the  Con 
stitution  had  been  established  as  the  "guide,  and  standard,  and 
rule  of  legislation,  executive  and  judicial  authority  and  functions." 
The  Federal  party,  led  by  the  elder  Adams,  admitted  that  the 
people  of  the  States  were  the  original  source  of  sovereignty,  but- 
contended  that  they  had  delegated  that  sovereignty  to  the  Federal 
Government,  and  that  under  the  Constitution  Congress  now  had 
national  sovereignty.  Pursuant  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Federalists, 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  followed.  These  provoked  the  famous 
Virginia  and.  Kentucky  resolutions,  in  which  Virginia  re-stated 
the  conditions  under  which  her  people  entered  the  Union :  "That 
the  powers  not  delegated  by  the  Constitution  to  the  United  States, 
nor  prohibited  to  it  by  the  States,  are  reserved  by  it  to  the  States 
or  the  people ;  and,  therefore,  the  exercise  of  the  powers  not  enum 
erated  in  the  grant  by  the  United  States  is  a  usurpation  of  the  au 
thority  of  the  States  or  of  the  people." 

The  earliest  rebellion  against  the  United  States  was  furnished 
by  Pennsylvania.33  In  1791  the  government  levied  what  was  called 
an  "excise"  tax  on  liquors.  The  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  were  the 
most  numerous  and  extensive  distillers  in  the  country.  The  tax 
interfered  with  the  profits  in  the  business,  and  this  gave  rise  to 
what  we  know  as  the  "Whiskey  Insurrection."  This  concerted  ac- 


35Wilson,  Division  and  Reunion,  46. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  29 

tion  of  a  large  number  of  citizens  furnishes  us  the  first  acts  of  nul 
lification  in  the  history  of  the  American  Union.     It  was  no  less 
important  or  authentic  because  not  the  act  of  a  legislature;  because 
an  act  in  convention  or  en  masse  by  a  large  body  of  people  becomes 
as  much  a  binding  and  representative  act  as  is  possible  to  have;  it 
emanates  from  the  highest  source  of  governmental  power.     It  was 
nullification  enforced  by  rebellion  against  the  lawful  authority  of 
the  United  States.    From  straggling  acts  of  personal  violence,  such 
as  catching  a  United  States  marshal  while  attempting  to  execute 
the  offensive  law,  who  then  was  branded  on  both  cheeks  with  a  red 
hot  iron,  tarred,  feathered,  and  ordered  to  leave  the  country,  the 
sedition  grew  in  violence  and  proportions.     "A  numerous  body  re 
peatedly  attacked"  the  house  of  the  United  States  inspector,  and 
finally  destroyed  by  fire  the  buildings  and  contents,  "it  being  the 
avowed  purpose"  "to  withstand  by  force  the  arms  of  the  authori 
ties  of  the  United  States ;  and  thereby  to  extort  a  repeal  of  the  law 
of  excise,  and  an  alteration  in  the  conduct  of  the  government,"  so 
the  President  of  the  United  States  reported  to  Congress.30    "Crimes 
which  reached  the  very  existence  of  social  order  were  perpetrated 
without  control,  and  the  friends  of  the  government,  abused"  and 
"forced  to  yield  to  the  treasonable  fury  of  a  small  portion  of  the 
'  United  States,"  so  the  original  records  go  on  to  tell  us ;  and  thus 
was   violated    "the   fundamental   principles    of    our    Constitution 
which  enjoins  that  the  will  of  the  majority  shall  prevail."    United 
States  troops  were  met  and  fought;  the  rebels  robbed  the  United 
States  mail  and  gathered  seven  thousand  troops.     A  major-general 
was  chosen,  his  troops  were  drilled,  and  the  munitions  of  war  gath 
ered.     Colonel  Clark,  one  of  the  judges  of  Fayette  county,  was 
made  president  of  what  was  called  an  "assembly  of  citizens,"  and 
Albert  Gallatin  was  chosen  secretary.     The  movement  was  pro 
claimed  an  insurrection  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  and 
declared  to  be  treason,  "being  overt  acts  of  levying  war  against  the 
United  States,"  which  were  declared  to  extend  to  the  "subversion 
equally  of  the  just  authority  of  the  government  and  of  the  rights 
of  individuals."37     The  insurrection  grew  to  such  proportions  that 
a  large  part  of  the  State  was  in  rebellion  for  nearly  four  year?,  the 


^Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  I,  84. 
""Am.  State  Papers  ;  Misc.,  I,  85 


30 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


extent  of  which  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that  commission 
ers  were  sent  to  inquire  into  the  situation,  who  reported  three  coun 
ties  of  the  rebellious  section  which  had  eleven  thousand  insurrec 
tionists,  none  of  whom  were  under  twenty-one  years  of  age.88  The 
movement  was  not  suppressed  until  President  Washington  called 
for  seventy-five  thousand  troops,  and  sent  Governor  Loe,  of  Vir 
ginia,  against  the  rebels. 

This  movement  attests  the  fact  that  no  section  of  our  country 
believed  more  strongly  than  did  the  North  that  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  could  do  no  act  which  oppressed  any  considerable  body  of 
people  in  a  State.  These  Pennsylvanians  believed  that  in  the  peo 
ple  of  a  State  resided  the  right  to  determine  when  the  laws  of  Con- 
.  became  oppressive;  and  that  when  the  Federal  Government 
interpreted  the  Constitution  that  that  body  of  people,  whose  in 
terests  were  involved,  were  the  judges  as  to  the  correctness  of  the 
Federal  position,  except  it  was  agreed  tacitly  or  otherwise,  and  un 
derstood  by  the  great  majority  in  all  the  States,  that  the  State, 
in  her  geographical  limits  as  they  were  at  the  formation  of  the  Con 
stitution,  or  as  they  should  thereafter  be  made  by  the  State  or  States 
concerned,  should  be  the  political  unit,  the  constitutional  indi 
vidual. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  tax  was  a  hardship  on  those  that  it 
affected;  yet  the  method  of  seeking  relief  was  nullification,— it  was 
even  far  more  pronounced  than  was  the  much  told  nullification 
§  threatened  in  later  years  by  South  Carolina.  It  went  much  fur 
ther  than  did  South  Carolina.  Some  of, her  people  held  a  single 
convention,  in  which  her  nullification  ordinance  was  pronounced; 
Pennsylvania  not  only  issued  pronunciamentoes  by  various  and 
numerous  gatherings  no  less  authentic  than  the  single  one  in  South 
Carolina,  but  Pennsylvania  backed  her  theories  by  armed  resistance 
and  protracted  acts  of  violence  and  bold  insurrection  which  in 
length  of  time  approximated  that  of  the  Civil  War. 

As  Governor  Wise  long  since  has  shown,  by  1801  the  Federal 
party  was  on  its  way  to  the  political  graveyard ;  and  the  principles 
tacitly  enunciated  in  the  settlement  of  the  difficulty  produced  by 
the  North  Carolina  trans-Stone  mountain  subjects  were  not  only 
no  longer  seriously  called  in  question,  but  became  the  recognized 


88Ib.,   101. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

rights  of  Americans.  The  present  State  of  Tennessee  "was  ceded 
by  North  Carolina  in  a  deed  executed  by  her  Senators  under  her 
laws  in  December,  1789,  and  was  accepted  by  act  of  Congress  April 
2,  1790.  .  .  .  The  cession  was  forced  upon  North  Carolina  by  acts 
of  rebels  to  her  jurisdiction,  countenanced  by  Congress/'' 

Settlers  in  the  then  State  of  North  Carolina  west  of  the  Stone 
mountain,  complaining  that  they  were  not  afforded  due  protection 
by  -the  parent  State,  declared  their  independence,  and  set  up 
against  both  State  and  Federal  authority  a  sovereign  of  their  own 
called  the  'State  of  Franklin/  They  organized  a  State  govern 
ment,  with  all  the  municipal  departments.  They  practically  nulli 
fied  in  their  limits  both  the  laws  of  North  Carolina  and  the  Fed 
eral  Government.  They  established  a  currency  of  peltry,  and  the 
then  Governor,  General  Sevier,  complained  that  he  was  cheated 
grievously  in  the  payment  of  his  salary  by  having  put  upon  him 
opossum  skins,  with  raccoon  tails  sewed  on  them.  They  contended 
that  his  story  was  absurd,  because  if  they  had  the  raccoon  tails 
they  would  have  the  raccoon  shins,  too;  but  he  convicted  them  of 
using  the  same  tails  for  numerous  different  payments  and  of  steal 
ing  the  tails  again  for  repayment. 

"The  United  States,  under  Washington's  administration,  did  not 
deem  it  a  duty  or  necessity  to  use  force  against  this  grotesque  but 
flagrant  rebellion,  but  compensated  North  Carolina,  and  pacified 
the  rebels  by  admitting  the  Territory  or  State  of  Franklin  into 
the  Union  as  the  State  of  Tennessee.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  by  rebellion  that  State  gained  admission  instead  of  losing  its 
place  in  the  Union ;  and  secession  and  nullification  were  sanctioned 
by  the  then  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Such,  then, 
was  the  jealous  regard  paid  by  all  to  the  rights  of  independent  self- 
government.  And  this,  too,  was  a  precedent  sanctioned  by  both 
State  and  Federal  authority,  which  fixed  a  habitude  of  thought  and 
feeling  and  action  on  the  very  first  settlers  of  this  country,  engraft 
ing  in  them  a  ruling  sense  of  the  right  of  self-government  against 
any  power  which  either  oppressed  or  failed  to  protect  them.  If 
it  Vas  not  taught  then  by  precedent  sanctioned  by  Congress,  its 
spirit  was  caught  by  them,  assuredly  by  the  colonies,  especially 
from  Massachusetts  and  all  New  England  and  Virginia."31 

"Henry  A.  Wise,  Seven  Decades  of  the  Union,  19.  20. 


NOKTI1EKN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Secession  and  rebellion  by  sovereign  States  was  first  promul- 
^  by   prominent   Northern   leaders   of   the   Federal   party   in 
2S03->04.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  from  1803  to  perhaps  1814 
New  England  furnishes  some  of  the  boldest  secession  and  rebellion 
projects  having  the  least  justification,  which  the  history  of  our 
country  affords.     While  President  of  the  United  States  it  became 
necessary,  in  defending  himself  against  attacks  from  his  own  sec 
tion  and  party,  for  John  Quincy  Adams  to  give  the  world  some 
startling  facts  concerning  the  disloyal  tendencies  of  New  England. 
Writing  from  Washington  December  20,  1828,  he  says:  "It  was 
...  in  1808  and  1809  that  I  mentioned  the  design  of  certain  lead 
ers  of  the  Federal  party  to  effect  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  and  the 
establishment  of  a  Northern  confederacy.    This  design  had  been 
formed  in  the  winter  of  1803->04,  immediately  after,  and  as  a  con 
sequence  of,  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana.     Its  justifying  causes  to 
those  who  entertained  it  were:  That  the  annexation  of  Louisiana 
to  the  Union  transcended  the  constitutional  power  of  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States;  that  it  formed,  in  fact,  a  new  confed 
eracy,  to  which  the  States  united  by  the  former  compact,  were  not 
bound  to  adhere;  that  it  was  oppressive  to  the  interests  and  de 
structive  to  the  influence  of  the  Northern  section  of  the  confed 
eracy,  whose  right  and  duty  it  was,  therefore,  to  secede  from  the 
new  body  politic  and  to  constitute  one  of  their  own.     The  plan  was 
so  far  matured  that  the  proposal  had  been  made  to  an  individual 
to  permit  himself,  at  the  proper  time,  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  military  movements  which,  it  was  foreseen,  would  be  necessary 
for  carrying  it  into  execution/'40 

July  7,  1804,  a  distinguished  Connecticut  lawyer  and  judge 
wrote  to  a  friend  in  Washington  city :  "I  have  seen  many  of  our 
friends,  and  all  that  I  have  seen  and  most  that  I  have  heard  from 
believe  that  we  must  separate,  and  that  this  is  the  most  favorable 
moment."41 

Alexander  Hamilton,  the  distinguished  New  York  politician  and 
writer,  on  the  day  before  his  death,  July  10,  1804,  expressed  hii 

40Henry  Adams,  New  England  Federalism,  52-3. 
41Ib.,  342. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  33 

disapproval  of  dismemberment  of  the  Union,  showing  clearly  that 
he  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  plan." 

May  11,  1829,  William  Plumer,  member  of  the  United  States 
Senate43  from  New  England,  in  a  memorandum  in  his  Life,  says, 
"I  recollect,  and  am  certain,  that  .  .  .  Mr.  Hillhouse,  after  saying 
to  me  that  New  England  had  no  influence  in  the  government, 
added,  in  an  animated  tone,  'The  Eastern  States  must,  and  will, 
dissolve  the  Union,  and  form  a  separate  government  of  their  own; 
and  the  sooner  they  do  this  the  better/  I  think  the  first  man  who 
mentioned  the  subject  to  me  was  Samuel  Hunt,  a  Representative 
from  New  Hampshire.  He  conversed  with  me  often  and  long  upon 
the  subject.  But  there  was  no  man  with  whom  I  conversed  so 
often,  so  fully  and  freely  as  with  Eoger  Griswold.  He  was,  with 
out  doubt  or  hesitation,  decidedly  in  favor  of  dissolving  the  Union 
and  establishing  a  Northern  confederacy.  Next  to  Griswold,  Uriah 
Tracey  conversed  most  freely  and  fully  upon  the  subject.  It  was 
he  who  informed  me  that  Gen.  Hamilton  had  consented  to  attend 
a  meeting  of  select  Federalists  in  Boston  in  the  autumn  of  1804. 
...  It  was  Tracey  who  informed  me  that  the  death  of  Hamilton 
had  prevented  the  meeting  in  Boston;  but  he  added,  'The  plan  of 
separation  is  not  abandoned/  ): 

This  is  all  the  more  startling,  when  we  remember  that  these  men 
were  not  only  men  of  prominence,  but  at  the  time  of  their  con 
spiracy  many  of  them  were  members  of  Congress. 

During  the  War  of  1812  the  United  States  Government,  through 
the  proper  channel  and  acting  under  the  Constitution,  called  for 
troops.  This  at  once  gave  occasion  for  a  fresh  outburst  of  this  re 
bellious  spirit.  Not  only  was  it  confined  to  individuals,  but  it 
reached  as  well  the  highest  officials  of  the  New  England  States. 
Massachusetts  refused  to  obey;  Connecticut  refused  to  send  her 
citizens  in  response  to  the  Federal  call ;  Ehode  Island  stood  firm  on 
her  State-rights  and  reasserted  her  sovereignty.  Each  defied  the 
Federal  Government,  and  refused  to  rally  to  her  flag ;  each  insisted 
that  she  was  no.t  bound  to  obey  unless  she  felt  it  to  the  interests  of 
the  citizens  of  her  State  to  do  so.  During  this  opposition  to  the 


"Hamilton's  Works,  v.  6,  56;  Hamilton's  Hist,  of  the  Republic,  v.  6,  823:  Adams, 
New  Eng.  Fed.,  365. 
"New  Eng.  Fed.,  146. 

"Adams,  New  Eng.  Fed.,  106  ;  Life  of  Plumer,  298. 
3 


34:  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

United  States  in  the  War  of  1812,  "A  large  meeting  in  Boston  de 
clared  the  act  [an  embargo  on  shipping]  arbitrary  and  unconsti 
tutional,  and  that  all  who  assisted  in  carrying  out  the  law  should 
be  regarded  as  enemies  of  the  State  and  as  hostile  to  the  liberties 
of  the  people."  "The  Government  of  Massachusetts  refused  to  sub 
mit  [to  the  demands  of  Congress],  and  the  authorities  of  the  latter 
State  passed  a  law  for  raising  a  provisional  army  of  two  thousand 
for  'special  State  defense/  of  which  one  of  her  own  citizens  was 
made  commander."43  And  ever  ready  to  appeal  to  religious  convic 
tions  for  support,  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  refused  to  extend 
a  vote  of  thanks  to  Capt.  Lawrence  for  the  capture  of  the  Peacock 
because  that  august  body  said  "it  was  not  becoming  a  moral  and 
religious  people"  to  approve  the  course  of  the  United  States  at 
that  time ! 

The  burdens  of  the  war  fell  heavily  upon  them,  yet  they  did  not 
have  such  a  love  for  the  United  States,  as  a  nation,  as  to  be  willing 
patiently  to  wait  the  rifting  of  the  war  cloud;  they  loudly  pro 
tested  that  the  interests  of  the  people  of  their  several  States  were 
first,  paramount, — and  second  and  last,  the  national  interests.  They 
argued  that  they  had  entered  the  Union  and  had  temporarily  sus 
pended  their  sovereign  independence  to  facilitate  State  success,  and 
that  they  had  a  right  to  determine  when  individual  State  happi 
ness  was  jeopardized.  In  the  Hartford  Convention,  which  met  in 
1814,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire,  and  Vermont 
were  more  or  less  largely  represented.  As  a  result  of  their  delibera 
tions,  they  came  forth  in  what  was  called  the  REPORT,  in  which, 
among  other  things,  they  made  the  following  declaration : 

"In  case  of  deliberate,  dangerous,  and  palpable  infractions  of  the 
Constitution,  AFFECTING-  THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  A* 
STATE  AND  THE  LIBERTIES  OF  THE  PEOPLE,  it  is  not 
only  the  right,  but  the  duty  of  such  State  to  interpose  its  au 
thority  for  protection  in  the  manner  best  calculated  to  secure  that 
end."  And  they  declared  that  when  cases  arise  which  jeopardize 
the  happiness  and  peace  of  the  citizens,  States  "must  be  their  own 
judges  and  execute  their  own  decisions."4' 

This  was  reaffirming  the  position  of  all  the  States  when  each  for 


«8Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  II.,  186. 
*8Adams,  New  Eng.  Fed.,  297. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  35 

herself  ratified  the  Constitution;  it  was  the  doctrine  incorporated 
in  the  Constitution,  and  was  the  position  taken  by  Kentucky  and 
Virginia  in  the  famous  resolutions  which  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
laws  had  excited.  New  England's  position  was  nullification  and 
more;  it  was  secession,  if  secession  should  be  necessary  to  protect 
"the  liberties  of  the  people."  As  a  doctrine  of  that  day,  it  cannot 
be  criticised;  but  the  justification  of  the  position  taken  by  these 
Northern  people  under  the  circumstances,  and  which  led  to  the  re- 
afiirmation  of  what  was  originally  regarded  as  the  fundamental 
doctrine,  is  open  to  serious  criticism  and  censure. 

Too  many  writers  have  sought  to  place  the  nullification  of 
South  Carolina,  when  at  a  later  day  she  opposed  the  tariff  law,  on 
a  parity  with  the  acts  of  the  Northern  opponents  of  the  "War  of 
1812.  There  is  but  one  similar  feature;  neither  resorted  to  armed 
resistance;  but  as  to  an  excuse  for  resorting  to  resistance,  under 
the  doctrine  of  State  sovereignty,  there  is  an  important  distinction. 
In  the  War  of  1812  the  question  was  a  temporary  and  unavoidable 
hardship  imposed  in  the  interest  of  the  entire  nation  rather  than 
a  few  people  of  a  few  States ;  the  enemy  against  which  the  Federal 
imposition  was  made  was  foreign  and  common.  In  the  sectional 
tariff  of  182S-'32  it  was  a  matter  as  between  citizens  of  different 
States,  and  where  those  of  the  one  were  seriously  oppressed  and 
those  of  the  other  were  granted  a  privilege  to  meet  an  end  which 
time  and  unhampered  natural  development  would  and  should  have 
been  left  to  produce.  Of  the  tariff  law  which  led  to  South  Caro 
lina's  attempted  nullification  Mr.  Eoosevelt  says,  "They  certainly 
had  grounds  for  discontent;  ...  in  the  Federal  Union  it  is  most 
unwise  to  pass  laws  which  shall  benefit  one  part  of  the  community 
to  the  hurt  of  another  part,  when  the  latter  receives  no  compensa 
tion."47 

In  1861  the  Southern  States,  believing  their  several  State  inter 
ests  so  demanded,  took  a  stand  against  the  same  authority  as  did 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Ehode  Island  in  1812,  all  be 
lieving  that  they  had  entered  the  Union  in  order  the  better  to  pro 
mote  the  happiness  and  general  welfare  of  the  people  of  each  re 
spective  State  first  and  the  nation  second. 

In  1835  Michigan,  then  an  unorganized  territory,  with  a  Federal 

47Thos.  H.  Benton,  90. 


36  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Governor,  its  own  representative  Legislature,  and  with  about  87,- 
000  inhabitants,  determined  to  become  a  State.  A  State  govern 
ment  was  organized,  and  admission  to  the  Union  was  asked.  But 
there  was  a  boundary  dispute  between  the  Territory  and  a  sister 
State,  which  must  be  settled  before  Congress  could  grant  the  peo 
ple  the  privileges  of  Statehood  on  an  equality  with  the  other 
States.  Her  citizens  did  not  take  this  view  of  the  matter,  how 
ever.  Acting  entirely  upon  their  own  motion,  they  elected  State 
officers,  refused  allegiance  to  the  Territorial  officers,  and,  notwith 
standing  the  President  of  the  United  States  treated  the  new  gov 
ernment  as  seditious,  "yet  this  State  went  on  exercising  the  pow 
ers  of  sovereignty  within  the  limits  of  federal  jurisdiction,  but  not 
in  the  Union/'  says  Judge  Thomas  M.  Cooley,  one  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  lawyers  of  that  State.48  The  Territorial  governor  whom 
the  President  sent  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  yet  legal  Terri 
tory,  was  scoffed,  derided,  and  threatened  until  driven  from  the  Ter 
ritory;  and  the  pretended  State  courts  and  "State  officers  were  recog 
nized  and  supported  by  the  people  and  in  the  undisturbed  posses 
sion  of  their  offices"  until  the  United  States  authorities  were  ren 
dered  official  nonentities,  the  same  writer  informs  us.49  And  thus 
open  rebellion  continued  until  "by  a  species  of  fraud,"  perpetrated 
by  a  minority  convention,  the  historians  of  that  State  tell  us,  which, 
though  it  claimed  to  be  "the  action  of  the  people  in  their  primary 
capacity,"50  held  July  6,  1836,  the  difficulties  purported  to  be  settled. 
Congress  at  once  seized  this  opportunity  to  avoid  the  armed  conflict 
which  impended,  winked  at  the  fraud,  and  admitted  Michi 
gan  "upon  a  false  assumption  of  facts,"51  January  26,  1837.  In 
concluding  his  notice  of  this  exercise  of  State  sovereignty  by  the 
people  of  Michigan  when  they  believed  the  happiness  and  welfare 
of  themselves  as  a  political  unit  demanded  and  justified  this  dis 
loyalty  to  the  Federal  Government,  the  learned  Northern  jurist 
and  distinguished  legal  authority  adds,  "The  people  had  main 
tained  its  honor  in  standing  upon  its  rights."55 

Who  were  these  people  who  thus  stood  upon  the  rights  of  a  State 


"Hist.    Mich.,  222. 
*9Ib.,  221,  223. 
50Ib.,  223. 
51Ib.,  224. 
62Ib.,  225. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  <3< 

to  regard  their  local  interests  to  the  unmistakable  disloyalty  to  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States?  Most  certainly  they  were  not 
Southern  people.  Unquestionably  they  were  not  of  Southern  de 
scent,  nor  were  they  Southern  in  their  sympathy.  The  Michigan 
emigration  was  New  England  almost  entirely,  so  far  as  the  United 
States  were  concerned,  and  New  England  ideas  and  sympathies 
predominated.58 

MIb.,  211,  240  et  seq.    See  an  interesting  study  of  State  sovereignty  in  Wiscon 
sin  in  Amer.  Hist.  Asso.  Report,  1891,  177. 


III. 
LEGAL  STATUS  OF  SLAVERY. 

EARLY  AGITATION. 

In  this  monograph  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  relation 
which  slavery  sustained  to  the  Civil  War.  This  will  reveal  the 
causes  which  led  to  secession.  I  have  given  what  I  believe  to  be 
the  relation  existing  between  the  several  States  and  the  Union  of 
which  they  are  members.  It  i's  not  necessary  to  show  that  the  States 
under  the  Constitution  possessed  dormant  sovereignty,  or  that  they 
retained  the  right  to  resume  absolute  independent  sovereignty  at 
will,  to  justify  the  secession  of  1861.  The  justification  of  South's 
part  in  the  Civil  War  by  no  means  depends  upon  sustaining  the  theory 
of  State  sovereignty  or  that  of  State's  rights.  While  I  am  satisfied 
I  have  given  the  true  history  of  the  formative  period,  and  that  my 
interpretation  of  that  history,  following  in  it  as  I  do  many  illus 
trious  historians  and  lawyers,  is  the  correct  one,  yet  it  is  not  neces 
sary  to  prove  this  position  to  justify  the  secession  of  the  Southern 
States.  To  prove  it  only  adds  unneeded  strength  to  a  position 
equally  impregnable  with  or  without  State  sovereignty  under  the 
Constitution.  However  much  any  Constitution  may  declare  itself 
eternal  or  forever  indissoluble,  or  however  dependent  the  members 
it  holds  together,  its  end  must  come  when  it  ceases  to  answer  the 
purpose  of  its  creation.  Some  years  prior  to  the  war  Mr.  Lincoln 
once  defined  this  right  which  is  paramount  to  all  constitutions. 
While  a  member  of  Congress  he  said,  "Any  people  anywhere,  being 
inclined  and  having  the  power,  have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake 
off  the  existing  government  [or  resist  dangerous  infractions  of  the 
fundamental  agreement]  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  bet 
ter.  This  is  a  most  valuable,  a  most  sacred  right, — a  right  which 
we  hope  and  believe  is  to  liberate  the  world.  NOT  is  this  right  con 
fined  to  cases  in  which  the  whole  people  of  an  existing  government 
may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any  portion  of  such  people  that  can 
may  revolutionize  and  make  their  own  of  so  much  of  the  territory 
as  thev  then  inhabit/5 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  39 

If  a  Constitution  or  governmental  agreement  sets  out  upon  its- 
face  the  conditions  under  which  the  members  which  it  holds  to 
gether  may  declare  it  at  an  end,  such  statement  only  lessens  the  re 
sponsibility  for  action  under  this  "most  sacred  right"  of  which  Mr. 
Lincoln  speaks. 

I  am  firmly  convinced  that  the  Southern  people  were  not  willing 
revolutionists.  They  certainly  did  no  less  than  any  other  section  in 
the  formation  of  the  Union;  and  most  assuredly  no  section  sur 
passed  in  valor  Southern  arms  whether  upon  the  plains  of  Texas 
or  fighting  under  the  most  distressing  difficulties  a  treacherous, 
dangerous,  and  crafty  enemy  upon  the  shores  of  the  Great  Lakes."1 
Southern  blood  bought  for  the  nation,  and  especially  for  the  North., 
more  territory  than  for  the  South  herself.  But  whether  revolutionists 
or  secessionists,  unless  there  was  dire  calamity  impending  them, 
which,  in  all  reasonable  probabilit}',  so  far  as  they  could  see,  remain 
ing  in  the  Union  would  not  avert,  then  they  were  none  other  than 
unjustifiable  rebels.  The  Southern  people  contended  that  the  anti- 
slavery  agitation  produced  conditions  w^hich  necessitated  secession. 
They  contended  that  the  Constitution  recognized  the  legality  of 
slavery,  and  that,  too,  as  a  subject  alone  of  State  regulation.  Since  a 
rebel  is  one  who  renounces  and  resists  the  officers  and  laws  of  his  gov 
ernment  wrhile  it  is  yet  supported  by  a  majority  of  the  whole  people 
and  yet  answers  the  purpose  of  its  creation,  and  since  the  anti- 
slavery  agitators  renounced  the  Constitutional  and  Congressional 
recognition  of  slavery  and  made  forcible  resistance  to  the  Federal 
government  and  its  officer's  who  endeavored  to  enforce  certain  regular 
and  Constitutional  laws,  the  Southern  people  contend  that  these 
agitators  were  the  rebels.  They  contend  that  this  rebellion  to  laws 
and  constitutional  regulations,  all  yet  then  sanctioned  by  a  ma 
jority  of  the  whole  people  of  the  Loiion.  carried  its  efforts  to  dis- 
affect  the  slaves,  thus  making  the  institution  a  dire  and  widespread 
and  imminent  source  of  danger  to  master  and  family;  and  by  a 
widespread  and  almost  constant  encouragement  of  slaves  to  run 
away,  caused  financial  loss  to  the  master, — all  these,  they  claimed, 
produced  a  condition  where  secession  offered  the  most  honorable 
course  of  averting  irretrievable  calamity.  Plow  much  of  truth  there 
h  in  this  no  American  can  be  indifferent  to  know.  And  hence, 


"Moore,  The  Northwest  Under  Three  Flags. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

however  repulsive  the  subject  of  slavery  may  be,  we  cannot  elimi 
nate  it  from  our  ante-bellum  history/ 

This  seems  an  appropriate  place  to  notice  one  or  two  of  what  the 
Southern  people  contend  are  the  too  oft-repeated,  groundless  posi 
tions  taken  with  reference  to  African  slavery  as  a  cause  of  the  Civil 
War.  We  frequently  hear  something  similar  to  Johnstone's  state 
ment:  "Three  things  are  necessary  for  the  complete  moral  justifi 
cation  of  the  war :  a  righteous  cause,  a  reasonable  prospect  of  mili 
tary  success,  and  a  certainty  that  success  will  secure  a  remedy  fpr 
the  wrongs  complained  of.  The  righteousness  of  the  Confederate 
cause  depended  upon  the  righteousness  of  human  slavery."55  Such 
perverted  statements,  the  South  insists,  are  not  only  unkind  and 
unbrotherly,  not  only  misleading  in  history,  but  unjust  to  the 
brave  Union  soldier  who  risked  his  life  or  perhaps  laid  it  down 
upon  one  of  the  many  gory  battlefields,  because  he  believed  the 
national  government  was  tottering  to  its  fall,  and  because,  when  he 
went  to  war,  he  was  led  to  believe  that  slavery  would  not  be  touched. 
No  one  questions  that  slavery  played  its  part,  a  leading  part,  too, 
in  the  pre-bellum  causes ;  but  the  South  contends  that  the  histori 
cal  truth  is  that  that  part  was  the  part  of  a  tool  with  which  design 
ing  men  sought,  with  a  very  small  comparative  per  cent,  of  indi 
vidual  exceptions,  to  effect  an  end  in  which  the  condition  or  hap 
piness  of  the  slave  had  as  little  to  do  as  a  motive  as  if  the  slave  had 
been  a  nonentity.  The  brave  and  generous  Lincoln  himself  dared 
not  risk  the  issue  of  war  on  the  abolition  of  slavery;  no,  not  till  the 
North  had  committed  herself  to  the  sanguinary  fratricidal  task; 
and  then  he  asserted,  and  his  party  backed  him  in  the  assertion, 
that  emancipation  was  not  made  because  it  was  either  a  legal  or 
moral  duty.  Lincoln  and  the  Union  representatives  in  Congress 
took  the  ground  that  if  the  South  could  be  conquered  with  slavery 
existing,  then  the  war  should  not  touch  slavery.  Writing  in  Aug 
ust,  1862,  Lincoln  said,  "My  paramount  object  in  this  struggle  is 
to  save  the  Union,  and  is  not  either  to  save  o>r  destroy  slavery.  If  I 
could  save  the  Union  without  freeing  any  slave,  I  would  do  it.  What 
I  do  about  slavery  and  the  colored  race  I  do  because  I  believe  it 
helps  to  save  the  Union."*  If  the  "righteousness  of  human  slavery" 

"Short  Hist,  of  the  Civil  War.  33. 

B6Hart,  Amer.  Contemporary  Hist.,  Vol.  IV.,  399. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  41 

had  been  involved,  the  very  first  duty  of  the  North  would  have  de 
manded  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  and  every  moment's  delay 
would  have  involved  multiple  murder.  Lincoln  saw  that  while 
slavery  existed  it  would  be  impossible  to  overcome  the  South. 
Hence,  slave  emancipation  followed  as  an  incident, — an  accidental 
result,  not  an  object,  of  the  Civil  War.  It  was  Lincoln's  last  hope 
to  strike  a  fatal  blow  before  foreign  intervention  should  make  the 
Union  cause  forever  hopeless.  The  North  struck  off  slave  shackles 
not  because  they  loved  negro  freedom  more,  but  defeat  less.  I  am 
sure  that  I  shall  be  pardoned  for  emphasizing  this  point ;  I  do  so  in 
the  interests  of  history :  I  w^ould  not  use  one  word  that  would  cause 
a  single  harsh  thought  against  our  present  North ;  it  is  of  our  com 
mon  country ;  let  Mason  and  Dixon  line  be  a  matter  of  history ;  we 
have  forgiven,  but  we  should  not  forget.  The  numerous  old  and 
new  unhistoric  representations  of  the  motives  which  moved  thou 
sands  of  intelligent,  patriotic  Southern  people,  led  by  the  Lees, 
Davis,  Beauregard,  the  Johnsons,  Early,  Longstreet,  Stuart,,  Gor 
don,  Jackson — the  list  need  grow  no  longer — show  a  spirit  of  in 
trusive  injustice. 

Let  me  now  inquire  for  the  status  of  slavery  under  the  Consti 
tution,  and  find  whether  it  was  a  subject  of  the  State  or  the  Nation. 

Let  us  reflect  a  moment.  The  benign  influences  of  the  teachings 
of  Christ  have  done  wonders  for  the  world.  The  calm,  gentle,  ele 
vating  influence  which  pervades  the  sayings  of  the  unostentatious 
Nazarene  is  without  a  parallel  in  fact  or  imaginative  creation.  We 
of  to-day  stand  in  the  radiance  of  its  accumulating  splendor;  in 
fidel,  agnostic,  or  believer,  each  orders  his  life  and  moulds  his 
opinions  from  a  higher  vantage  ground  than  that  occupied  by  our 
forefathers.  It  has  taken  nearly  two  thousand  years  to  bring  hu 
manity  thus  far.  We  can  understand  no  period  in  history,  we  can 
correctly  weigh  no  action,  until  we  see  through  the  light  of  former 
years,  and  stand  upon  the  ground  occupied  by  those  whose  actions 
we  have  under  consideration.  This  is  no  less  true  of  the  struggle 
incident  to  legal  slavery  in  our  country,  in  proportion  to  time,  than 
of  the  struggle  between  the  Britons  and  the  Norman  invaders 
nearly  one  thousand  years  ago.'  The  closing  curtain  in  the  Ameri 
can  slave-drama  fell  nearly  half  a  century  since;  the  tragedy  be 
gan  in  the  halls  of  Congress  more  than  a  century  before  our  day. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

So,  no  matter  what  we  might  think  of  one  who  would  advocate  hu 
man  slavery  in  our  time,  we  must  not  let  that  opinion  prejudice 
our  estimation  of  the  various  characters  who  play  upon  the  one 
side  or  the  other  from  1798  to  Lincoln's  emancipation  proclama 
tion  in  1862.  The  question  for  history  is,  At  any  given  time  what 
was  actually  done;  and  then,  in  estimating  virtues  and  determining 
culpability,  it  is,  As  men  and  conditions  were  at  any  given  time, 
which  of  opposing  courses  most  conserved  the  peace,  happiness,  and 
in  the  end  redound  to  the  greatest  good,  with  the  least  possible  in 
cidental  hardship,  to  the  most  considerable  part  highest  in  intel 
lectual  and  social  development?  Our  treatment  of  the  Indians  and 
the  almost  unopposed  American  position  toward  the  Chinese  illus 
trate  my  meaning.  No  one  questions  but  what  a  Chinaman  has 
more  liberty  and  more  opportunities  in  the  United  States,  yet  we 
generally  leave  him  to  suffer  and  consult  the  higher  interests  of  the 
more  advanced  part  of  mankind. 

Throughout  what  I  shall  here  have  to  say  concerning  the  rela 
tion  which  negro  slavery  sustained  to  the  Civil  War,  some  things, 
too  often  neglected  or  treated  lightly,  must  not  be  forgotten.  The 
first  is  that  the  Constitution,  whose  formation  we  so  briefly  no 
ticed,  left  slavery  subject  to  State  control,  except  as  to  future  im 
portations  or  trade  upon  the  high  seas  and  interstate  fugitive 
claims;  and  this  relation  was  repeatedly  declared  by  Congress. 
(2)  In  the  next  place,  the  Constitution  and  Congress  recognized 
legal  slaves  as  property,  differing  in  no  respect,  so  far  as  recogni 
tion  of  money  value  was  concerned,  from  other  valuable  chattels ; 
this  was  repeatedly  recognized  at  no  inconsiderable  intervals  up  to 
the  Civil  War  by  various  Congressional  laws  and  resolutions.  It 
was  declared  to  be  a  fundamental  law  by  national  treaties  and  en 
forced  by  diplomatic  negotiations  generally  managed  by  Northern 
men.  (3)  Slavery  agitation  began  in  the  North;  the  injustice  and 
danger  of  one  State  or  the  individuals  thereof  interfering  with  the 
slavery  of  another  were  repeatedly  declared  by  Congress. 

1.  State  control  of  slavery  and  the  relation  it  sustained  to  the 
Federal  government. 

No  one  has  ever  questioned  that  Art.  I.,  sec.  9,  1,  of  the  Consti 
tution  refers  to  slavery,  and  that  it  authorizes  Congress  to  prohi 
bit  the  bringing  of  negroes  for  slavery  to  any  part  of  this  country. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  43 

There  can  be  no  question  that  it  recognizes  slavery  as  legal,  and 
authorizes  the  Federal  government  to  tax  the  import  trade  of  ne 
groes  so  long  as  it  shall  continue.  Art.  IV.,  sec.  2,  3,  also  recog 
nizes  the  valid  legality  of  negro  slavery,  and  leaves  it  to  the  juris 
diction  of  the  respective  States  where  it  might  exist ;  and  gives  Con 
gress  no  further  or  other  jurisdiction  or  right  over  or  concerning 
the  slavery  thus  declared  to  exist,  except  to  require  any  State  to 
return  to  "the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due" 
any  person  fleeing  from  such  "service  or  labor." 

By  no  means  are  we  left  to  gather  these  conclusions  from  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Constitution  alone.  At  the  very  first  session  of  Con 
gress  (March,  1790)  after  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  a 
memorial  was  presented  by  a  Quaker  society  praying  Congress  to 
take  jurisdiction  of  slavery.  The  House  referred  the  petition  to 
Foster,  of  New  Hampshire;  G-ery,  of  Massachusetts;  Huntington, 
of  Connecticut;  Lawrence,  of  New  York;  Sinnickson,  of  New  Jer 
sey;  Hartley,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Parker,  of  Virginia.  They 
recommended  the  following :  "Resolved,  That  Congress  has  no  au 
thority  to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves  or  in  the  treat 
ment  of  them  in  any  of  the  States,  it  remaining  with  the  several 
States  alone  to  provide  rules  and  regulations  therein  which  hu 
manity  and  true  policy  may  require."51 

This  resolution  was  passed  without  opposition.  In  a  speech  in 
the  United  States  Senate  in  1829  Daniel  Webster,  referring  to  this 
same  resolution,  said,  "The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they 
might  have  entertained,  were  allayed  and  quieted  by  this  early  de 
cision,  and  so  remained  till  they  were  excited  afresh  without  cause 
but  for  collateral  and  indirect  purposes."  Then  complaining  that 
the  majority  at  the  North  had  been  improperly  accused  of  desiring 
tc  interfere  with  slavery,  he  further  said  that  nothing  would  induce 
him  "to  overstep  the  limits  of  Constitutional  duty  or  to  encroach 
on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery  of  the  South,"  he 
continued,  "I  leave  where  I  find  it — in  the  hands  of  their  own  gov 
ernments.  It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  the 
peculiar  effect  which  the  magnitude  of  that  population  [the  slaves] 
has  had  in  the  distribution  of  power  under  this  federal  govern- 


57Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,   I.,  137  ;  Annals  of  Cong.,  vol.  2,  1  sess.  H.  R., 
p.  1474  ;  Webster's  Works,  vol.  3,  280. 


44 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


ment,  ...  nor  would  I  countenance  any  movement  to  alter  this  ar 
rangement  of  representation.  It  is  the  original  bargain,  the  com 
pact;  let  it  stand.  ...  I  go  for  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for 
the  Union  as  it  is."58 

Concerning  the  establishment  of  a  mixed  international  court  to 
adjudicate  cases  against  vessels  alleged  to  be  captured  slavers,  pro 
posed  by  Lord  Castlereigh  on  behalf  of  England  in  a  treaty  with 
the  United  States  November  2,  1818,  Secretary-of-State"  John 
Quincy  Adams  said,  "The  condition  of  the  blacks  being  in  this 
Union  regulated  by  the  municipal  laws  of  the  separate  States,  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  can  neither  guarantee  their 
liberty  in  the  States  where  they  could  only  be  received  as  slaves 
nor  control  them  in  the  States  where  they  would  be  recognized  as 
free."59 

In  1838  we  find  the  Senate  solemnly  passing  the  following  decla 
ration  as  to  the  status  of  slavery  under  the  Constitution :  "Kesolved, 
That  any  attempt  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  any  territory 
of  the  United  States  in  which  it  exists  would  create  serious  alarm 
and  just  apprehension  in  the  States  sustaining  that  domestic  in 
stitution,  and  would  be  a  violation  of  good  faith  toward  the  inhabi 
tants  of  any  such  territory  who  have  been  permitted  to  settle  with 
and  hold  slaves  therein ;  and  because  whenever  such  territory  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  the  people  thereof  shall  be  en 
titled  to  decide  that  question  exclusively  for  themselves."  On  vote 
there  were  only  ten  of  the  entire  number  of  Senators  who  opposed 
this  declaration,  and  Senator  Ben  ton,  who  was  not  in  svmpathy 
with  the  institution  of  slavery,  says,  "The  few  who  voted  against" 
the  resolution  "did  so  for  reasons  wholly  unconnected  with"  its 
merits.60  They  believed  the  Constitution  was  plain  enough  without 
any  further  declarations  by  Congress.  Webster,  for  instance,  voted 
in  the  negative,  but  he  took  occasion  again  to  declare  that  any  in 
termeddling  with  slavery  "by  a  State  or  individual  was  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  the  confederacy,  and  was  thereby  illegal  and  unjust,81 

Senator  Seward,  afterward  Mr.  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  State, 
upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  before  Lincoln's  inauguration,  said: 

"Webster's  Works,  III.,  281  ;  Renton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  I.,  138. 
58Am.  St.  Tapers  :  F.  R.,  IV.,  400. 
«°Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  II.,  137. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  45 

"Experience  in  public  affairs  has  confirmed  my  opinion  that  do 
mestic  slavery  existing  in  any  State  is  wisely  left  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  exclusively  to  the  care  and  management 
and  disposition  of  the  States,  and  if  it  were  in  my  power  I  would 
not  alter  the  Constitution  in  this  respect."85  Many  such  proofs 
might  be  given,  but  I  shall  content  myself  with  but  one  more  under 
this  head. 

Thos.  M.  Cooley,  LL.  D.,  of  Michigan,  formerly  one  of  the  jus 
tices  of  the  supreme  court  of  Michigan  and  professor  of  law  in  the 
University  of  Michigan,  enjoys  an  enviable  reputation  as  a  jurist 
and  legal  historian.  He  is  thoroughly  anti-slavery  in  his  senti 
ments.  In  his  history  of  Michigan  he  says,  "It  had  been  from  the 
first  agreed  by  all  schools  of  constitutional  construction  that  the 
federal  government  had  no  power  over  the  institution  of  slavery  in 
the  States,  except  in  the  matter  of  the  reclamation  of  fugitive 
slaves  or  perhaps  as  slaves  became  the  subject  of  interstate  com 
merce.  The  States,  by  the  Constitution,  had  been  left  to  regulate 
their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way;  that  of  master 
and  servant  as  much  as  that  o>f  marriage."83 

2:  The  Constitution  recognized  negro  slaves  as  property,  differ 
ing  in  no  essential  from  other  valuable  property. 

Under  the  old  Confederation  negroes  were  legal  property,  and 
the  numerous  negroes  carried  from  the  North  by  the  British  in  the 
E  evolutionary  War — as  many  as  three  thousand  having  been  car 
ried  from  Xew  York  at  one  time — were  demanded  by  our  govern 
ment  as  the  property  of  American  citizens.  In  the  Treaty  of  1783 
it  was  stipulated  that  his  "Britanic  Majesty  should,  with  all  con 
venient  speed  and  without  causing  any  destruction  or  carrying 
away  any  negroes  or  other  property  of  American  inhabitants,  with 
draw  all  his  armies,"  etc.64  Under  this  treaty  negroes  belonging  to 
citizens  of  Xew  Jersey  were  claimed  as  their  property.85 

In  the  War  of  1812  the  British  removed  a  considerable  number 
of  slaves  to  Nova  Scotia  against  the  will  of  the  owners.  Others 


"Cudmore,  Civil  Gov.  U.  S.,  119. 
MHist.  Mich.,   355. 

"Am.  State  Papers  :  For'n  Rela'ns,  Vol.  I.,  p.  190  ;  John  Quincy  Adams'  W'l 
(Boston,  1850),  Vol.  III.,  336;  IX.,  632. 
85Am.   State  Papers  :    For'n  Rel'ns,  Vol.  I.,  p.  191. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

were  sold  in  the  West  Indies.68  These  slaves  were  induced  or  forced 
to  leave  their  masters  because  it  was  believed  the  loss  thus  sustained 
would  reduce  the  power  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  Americans. 
In  the  treaty  of  peace,  known  to  history  as  the  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
in  1814,  negotiated  on  behalf  of  America  by  Messrs.  Adams,  Rus- 
sell,  and  Gallatin,  from  Northern  free  States,  and  Clay  and  Bayard, 
from  slave  States,— these  confiscated  slaves  were  claimed  as  prop 
erty,67  and  the  British  Government  was  required  to  pay  for  them. 
Payment  was  refused;  this  led  to  a  series  of  diplomatic  correspond 
ence08  until  at  length,  in  the  convention  with  Great  Britain  on  the 
question,May  20,1820,in  which  "the  United  States  claimed  for  their 
citizens,  and  as  their  private  property"  the  removed  slaves,  nego 
tiated  by  Albert  Gallatin,  Richard  Rush,  Frederick  John  Robinson, 
and  Henry  Goolburn,  plenipotentiaries,  the  question  was  agreed  to 
be  arbitrated  before  Emperor  Alexander,  Emperor  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias.  This  was  done  according  to  agreement.69  The  arbitration 
agreements  were  carefully  prepared,— Henry  Middleton  represent 
ing  the  United  States  and  Sir  Charles  Bagot  representing  Great 
Britain.  Alexander  held  that  the  slaves  which  had  been  removed 
against  their  masters'  wills  were  lawful  and  valuable  property,  and 
adjudged  that  Great  Britain  was  liable  in  damages.  At  London 
in  1826,  Gallatin  representing  the  United  States,  and  Huskisson 
and  Addington  Great  Britain,  it  was  agreed  that  this  finding  of  the 
emperor  was  correct,  and  Great  Britain  promised  to  pay  to  the 
United  States  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  had  owned  these  slaves 
one  million  two  hundred  and  four  thousand  nine  hundred  and  sixty 
dollars.  The  next  year,  1827,  Gallatin,  a  Northern  man,  under  the 
administration  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  and  with 
the  approval  of  the  administration,  actually  secured  the  payment 
of  this  sum.70 

In  1830  the  Comet  and  in  1834  the  Encomium  were  carrying 
slaves  from  one  port  in  the  United  States  to  another  port  in  the 
same.  Storms  drove  and  stranded  both  near  Nassau,  New  Provi 
dence  on  the  Bahama  Islands.  The  slaves  were  removed  by  the 


66Am.  St.  Papers  :  F.  R.,  v.  3,  750. 

87Am.  State  Papers  :  For'n  Rel'ns,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  106. 

88Ib.,  363. 

69Am.  State  Papers  :  For'n  Rel'ns,  Vol.  IV.,  402,  645. 

70Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  I.,  90-91. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  47 

wreckers  to  the  island;  and  detained  by  the  local  authorities  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  masters  or  those  in  charge  of  the  vessels.  In 
1835  the  Enterprise,  sailing  from  the  District  of-  Columbia  destined 
for  some  Southern  port  of  the  United  States  "on  a  lawful  voyage 
and  with  regular  papers,"  was  forced  by  storm  to  put  in  at  Port 
Hamilton,  Bermuda  Island.  There  her  slaves  were  forcibly  seized 
and  detained  by  the  local  authorities.  In  each  case  the  owners  pro 
tested  in  vain,  after  which  they  applied  to  our  government  for  re 
dress.  Each  of  these  islands  at  each  respective  time  was  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  England.  Our  authorities  demanded  the  value  of 
the  slaves  of  the  British  government.  The  claim  was  based  upon 
the  property  alleged  to  exist  in  the  negroes.  "After  years  of  nego 
tiations  with  Great  Britain  redress  was  obtained  in  the  two  first 
cases — the  full  value  of  the  slaves  being  paid  to  the  United  States 
to  be  paid  to  their  owners.""  England  refused  payment  in  the  case 
of  the  negroes  taken  from  the  Enterprise,  because  she  said  slavery 
was  illegal  in  her  territory — her  emancipation  law  having  taken  ef 
fect  in  the  island  of  Bermuda  before  the  time  the  slaves  from  the 
Enterprise  were  carried  there.  Hence,  having  touched  free  soil,  she 
claimed  they  became  free,  and  insisted  that  they  no  longer  remained 
property.  The  matter  was  brought  before  the  Senate,  and  in  a  se 
ries  of  resolutions  the  Senate  declared  the  slaves  to  be  property, 
and  that  the  property  rights  "as  established  by  the  laws  of  the  State 
to  which  they  belonged"  were  not  affected  by  their  being  upon  Ber 
muda  Island  free  soil.  Then  the  declaration  continued  thus :  "Ee- 
solved,  That  the  brig  Enterprise  which  was  forced  unavoidably  by 
stress  of  weather  into  Port  Hamilton,  Bermuda  Island,  while  on  a 
lawful  voyage  on  the  high  seas  from  one  part  of  the  Union  to  an 
other,  comes  within  the  principles  embraced  in  the  foregoing  reso 
lutions,  and  that  the  seizure  and  detention  of  the  negroes  on  board 
by  the  local  authority  of  the  island  was  an  act  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nations  and  highly  unjust  to  our  own  citizens  to  whom  they 
belonged."72  Every  member  of  the  Senate  voted  for  this  plain  decla 
ration  of  a  violation  of  the  property  rights  pertaining  to  the 
slaves.78 


"Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  II.,  p.  182. 
72Ib.,  182. 
73Ib.,  183. 


48  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

As  late  as  March  9,  1853,  pursuant  to  act  of  Congress  approved 
March  3,  1853,  the  grandson  of  Major  William  Hazzard  Wiggs,  "a 
gallant  officer  of  the  Revolutionary  War,"  so  the  record  tells  us,  was 
paid  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  $41,691.21  for  the  loss 
of  negro  slave  property  sustained  by  the  grandfather  at  the  hands 
of  the  British  during  the  Eevolution.  The  beneficiary  claimed  that 
there  was  due  a  larger  sum  which,  he  insisted,  the  correction  of  a 
clerical  error  would  entitle  him  to  receive.  In  1860  the  question  as 
to  this  error  came  both  before  Congress  and  the  Court  of  Claims. 
The  question  turned  upon  determining  the  measure  which  had  been 
used  by  Congress  to  determine  the  value  of  the  several  slaves,  and  it 
was  decided  that  the  loss  had  been  estimated  upon  the  per  capita 
valuation  of  a  slave  as  previously  determined  by  the  legislature  of 
South  Carolina.74  April,  1862,  Congress,  then  composed  of  North 
ern  Eepublicans,  liberated  the  slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
by  paying  their  owners  one  million  dollars  !75  Lincoln,  when  a 
member  of  Congress,  had  introduced  a  similar  bill.78  So,  from  the 
Revolution  down  to  the  Civil  War,  the  valid  legal  property  rights 
vested  in  negro  slaves  as  those  rights  were  declared  by  the  local  laws 
of  the  several  States  were  not  only  never  questioned,  but  had  the 
most  solemn  sanction  and  acquiescence  by  all  political  parties  and 
classes — North  as  well  as  South. 

3.  The  agitation  of  slavery  began  in  the  North.  It  began  at  the 
very  time  slavery  was  on  the  verge  of  dying  from  the  entire  coun 
try.  There  was  nothing  to  call  for  these  early  agitations,  and  by 
being  synchronous  with  the  beginnings  of  the  underground  railroad 
they  defeated,  rather  than  aided,  emancipation.  The  early  work  of 
the  underground  movement  will  hereafter  be  fully  shown. 

The  earliest  agitations  came  from  the  Northern  Quakers,  and  not 
until  the  Civil  War  did  this  people  forego  this  work.  This  same 
people,  many  of  them  the  same  individuals,  had  refused  to  cham 
pion  the  cause  of  American  freedom  in  the  Revolution, — a  very  few 
being  the  only  important  exceptions.  John  Adams,  second  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  says  the  bulk  of  them  opposed  the  cause 
of  American  freedom,  and  that  when  their  representatives  in  the 


74Repts.  Committees,  36  Cong.,  1  sess,,  v.,  No.  471,  pp.  1-15. 

"Cong.  Globe,  Apr.,  '62. 

76Bell.  Letters  and  Addresses  of  Lincoln,  360. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  40 

colonial  Congress  "began  to  see  that  independence  was  approach 
ing  they  started  back,"  and  listened  to  the  advocates  of  freedom 
with  "horror,  terror,  and  detestation,  strongly  marked  on  their 
countenances."77  Frequently  they  were  spies  against  their  own  fel 
low-citizens  in  favor  of  the  English.  Concerning  some  of  this  sect, 
Washington  said,  "I  could  by  no  means  bring  the  Quakers  to  any 
terms.  They  chose  rather  to  be  whipped  to  death  than  to  bear  arms 
or  lend  us  any  assistance  whatever  upon  the  fort  or  [do]  anything 
for  self-defence/'7* 

The  venerable  McKean,  of  Philadelphia,  estimated  in  1814  that 
"Friends  or  Quakers,  Monenists,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopa 
lians, — whose  clergy  received  salaries"  from  the  crown  and  other 
English  sources,  composed  the  bulk  of  American  opposition  to  sepa 
ration  from  England.79 

Discussing  their  petitions  for  national  interference  with  slavery 
in  the  States,  a  member  of  Congress  said  of  them  that  "in  time  of 
war  they  would  not  defend  their  country  from  the  enemy,  and  in 
time  of  peace  they  were  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  others."* 

When  Congress  informed  these  petitioners  that  the  national  gov 
ernment  had  no  power  over  slavery  in  the  States,  we  can  readily  see 
how  importunity  of  this  class  of  men  irritated  and  begot  bitterness. 
So  from  this  early  beginning  pours  forth  a  stream  of  mad  poison 
which  finally  drove  thousands  of  Xorthern  people  to  openly  sanc 
tion  the  wholesale  murder  of  Southern  slave-holders.  Xo  wonder 
Washington  called  the  prayer  of  these  early  petitioners  to  Congress 
"very  mal  apropos!"* 

December  3,  1819,  a  convention  held  by  citizens  of  Hartford  and 
vicinity,  in  Massachusetts,  petitioned  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  Missouri.  The  petition,  long  and  galling,  admitted,  "The  Union 
is  indeed  a  compact  of  independent  and  sovereign  States ;  .  .  .  this 
was,  in  fact,  a  bargain  between  the  States  as  independent  contract 
ing  parties/'82  referring  to  the  Constitution  and  its  recognition  of 
slavery  as  a  State  institution.  It  admitted,  "We  well  know  that  this 


"Works   (Boston.  1850),  v.  2.  407. 
"Spark's  Writings  of  Washington,  v.  II.,  169. 
79John  Adams'  Works,  v.  X.,  87. 

^Annals  of  Congress,  v.  I.,  1  sess.,  March  17,  1700.  1453  et  seq.  for  a  full  dis 
cussion  of  these  petitions. 

81Spark's  Washington,  v.  X..  p.   85. 
82Am.  State  Papers:  Misc.,  II.,  572-4. 
4 


50  XOHTIIEKX  L'EBKU.IOX  AXD  SOUTHERN  SECESSIOX. 

dreadful  curse  was  entailed  upon  them  [the  Southern  people],  and 
that  many  of  our  own  citizens  have  contributed  to  its  continuance." 
let  it  insisted  upon  "keeping  the  slave  population  of  our  country 
within  the  narrowest  limits.  If  coercion  be  necessary,  it  can  be 
most  easily,  promptly  and  successfully  applied.  ...  If  plans  of 
gradual  emancipation  are  to  be  adopted,  they  will  be  most  effica 
ciously  carried  into  effect."81  Coercion  for  the  original , Southern 
slave-holding  States,  emancipation  for  the  slaves!  and  both  sug 
gested  by  citizens  of  Massachusetts!  There  was  no  indication  that 
coercion — armed  force — would  be  needed,  yet  it  was  thus  threat 
ened — and  by  those  who  admitted  equal  guilt,  Thus  the  agitators 
began  to  pull  down  upon  them  Southern  wrath.  Nothing  will  make 
a  man  more  combative  than  to  talk  of  using  force  to  compel  him 
to  stop  doing  what  is  in  obedience  to  or  by  permission  of  valid  law. 
Even  before  this  petition  the  same  Quakers  who  first  petitioned 
Congress  had,  in  Pennsylvania,  entered  the  systematic  theft  of 
negro  slave  property  from  neighboring  States84 — property  protected 
by  the  Constitution  and  which  Congress  had  plainly  told  them  could 
not  be  touched,  by  the  national  government  or  by  citizens  living  in 
States  other  than  the  States  where  the  institution  of  which  they 
complained  existed.85  So  upon  every  hand  these  agitators  showed 
not  only  arrogance,  conceit,  and  a  domineering  attitude,  but  also 
exhibited  a  want  of  regard  for  law — unless  that  law  happened  to 
conform  to  tJirir  demands. 

That  there  was  no  cause  for  believing  other  than  that  slavery  wras 
rapidly  passing  from  the  American  continent,  especially  during  the 
years  of  these  early  agitations,  I  have  elsewhere  abundantly  shown 
by  the  evidence  of  George  Bancroft86  and  others,  thus  leaving  no 
cause  for  these  complaints. 

On  December  22  of  the  same  year  another  gathering  of  citizens 
at  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  petitioned  Congress  not  to  admit  Mis 
souri  with  slave  concessions.  The  petitioners  began  by  admitting, 
"That  slavery,  as  it  now  exists  in  the  United  States,  in  the  opinion 
of  your  memorialists,  can  never  be  made  a  matter  of  reproach  to 
the  existing  Government  or  the  present  generation.  It  was  an  evil 

83Am.  State  Tapers:  Misc.,  v.  II.,  p.  r>74. 
^Am.  State  Tapers:  Misc.,  v.  II..  p.  752. 
^Am.  State  Tapers  :  Misc..  v.  I.,  p.  12. 
8(!IIist.  of  the  U    S..  v.   II..  275. 


NOUT11EUX   REBELLION   AND  SOUT1IEKN   SECESSION.  51 

introduced  into  the  colonies  by  the  parent  State,  and  acquiesced 
in  to  a  great  degree  by  the  colonies  themselves  in  an  age  when  the 
traffic  in  slaves  was  pursued  by  all  nations  without  a  suspicion  of 
its  enormity.  The  Northern  colonies  participated  in  it  equally 
with  the  Southern/'  they  continue,  "and  the  navigation  of  the  New 
England  ports  and  particularly  of  this  town  was  employed  con 
tinually  on  the  African  coast  in  the  transportation  of  slaves  to  the 
different  American  markets  and  by  means  of  American  capital. 
There  can  be  no  reproach,  therefore,  cast  upon  our  Southern  breth 
ren  for  the  introduction  of  this  evil  which,  as  your  memorialists 
conceive,  will  not  equally  attach  itself  to  ourselves  and  the  English 
nation.  We  were  all  equally  disposed  to  embark  in  the  traffic,  .  .  . 
and  the  guilt,  if  any  there  be,  must  be  shared  in  an  equal  degree 
by  the  parties  concerned."81  They  admitted  "that  the  number  of 
slaves  introduced  into  the  Union  from  foreign  countries  and  in  vio 
lation  of  your  laws  must  ever  be  inconsiderable,"  but  they  insist 
"that  it  would  be  unwise  in  Congress  to  permit  the  extension  of 
slavery  in  the  new  States/'8'  They  assign  as  a  reason  for  their  un 
wisdom  that  "its  effect  on  the  state  of  agriculture,  the  manufac 
turing,  and  mechanical  arts,  and  generally  on  the  industrious  and 
profitable  habits  of  a  people  and  their  domestic  peace"89  is  bad  and 
generally  injurious.  And  the  only  other  reason  assigned  is  that 
slaves  will  be  increased  in  numbers.  No  intimation  is  made  that 
this  slavery  is  affecting  the  petitioners  or  their  State.  They  do  not 
anticipate  any  appreciable  harm  from  the  import  trade,  and  to  se 
cure  the  "clomestic'peace"  of  the  Southern  States  and  prevent  what 
they  allege  will  be  an  unlimited  geographical  spread  of  the  increas 
ing  numbers,  they  interpose.  The  history  of  every  Territory  and 
State  to  the  north  of  Missouri;  the  then  existing  non-slavery  of 
northern  Virginia  and  the  experience  of  much  of  Kentucky  refuted 
the  intimation  of  unlimited  territorial  growth;  and  as  foi;  South 
ern  peace — it  was  too  plainly  but  the  clothing  of  the  wolf — a  mask 
beneath  which  subtle  politicians  paraded  into  Congress. 

But  at  length  the  Missouri  question  was  settled ;  the  so-called 
compromise  clause  had  given  to  the  North  by  far  the  greater  bulk 


87Am.  State  Papers:  Misc..  v.  II..  p.  568. 
^Ib.,  569. 
S9Ib.,  569. 


52  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  the  Union,  and  for  more  than  thirty  years  thereafter  the  South 
rested  quietly  under  the  inequality.  For  many  years  there  was  no 
indication  that  the  Southern  people  would  gather  about  them  the 
fair-minded  men  of  the  North  and  restore  to  its  normal  and  con 
stitutional  basis  the  yet  unorganized  territory.  More  than  ever  the 
territories  to  be  settled  after  Missouri  were  to  draw  their  citizens 
from  the  older  and  previously  existing  States.  They  were  to  be 
filled  with  men  already  used  to  the  ballot,— men  whose  rights  as 
citizens  of  the  United  States  had  accrued  to  and  vested  in  them 
before  their  emigration  to  a  new  home;  and  not  until  after  they 
had  moved,  since  it -was  a  matter  of  formality  of  organizing  a  po 
litical  unit  which  would  leave  them  yet  citizens  in  no  essential  dif 
ferent  from  their  original  citizenship,  even  if  the  Constitution  had 
left  a  different  course  within  Congressional  discretion,  no  valid  rea 
son  appeared  for  refusing  to  such  citizens  removed  to  new  homes 
the  same  privileges  which  Ohio,  Michigan,  or  Illinois,  and  all  the 
States  organized  after  the  original  thirteen,  had  been  accorded. 
But  during  all  these  years  of  apparent  contentment  with  the  dispo 
sition  of  the  territorial  question  as  settled  in  the  Missouri  legisla 
tion  the  Northern  abolitionists  exhibited  an  increasing  disregard 
for  national  laws,  and  in  numerous  instances  showed  contempt  of 
the  Constitution  itself;  and  that  officiousness  which  is  no  less  dis 
gusting  when  found  in  numbers  than  in  an  individual  became  in 
tolerable,  not  to  the  South  alone,  but  as  well  to  the  majority  in 
the  North. 

Concerning  those  petitions  poured  out  upon  Congress  after  the 
Missouri  question  on  down  through  1837-'3S  and  well  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  it  is  well  to  let  Thos.  H.  Benton, 
opposed  to  slavery  himself,  speak.  He  says,  "There  was  but  little 
in  the  state  of  the  country  at  that  time  to  excite  an  anti-slavery 
feeling ,  or  to  excuse  these  disturbing  applications  to  Congress. 
There  was  no  slave  territory  at  that  time  but  that  of  Florida.  .  .  . 
The  petitioners  did  not  live  in  any  territory,  or  .State,  or  c]istrict 
subject  to  slavery.  They  felt  none  of  the  evils  of  which  they  com 
plained;  were  answerable  for  none  of  the  supposed  sin  which  they 
denounced;  were  living  under  a  general  government  which  ac 
knowledged  property  in  slaves,  and  had  no  right  to  disturb  the 
rights  of  the  owner ;  and  they  committed  a  cruelty  upon  the  slave 


NORTIIEIW  REBELLION  AXD  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  53 

by  the  additional  rigors  which  their  pernicious  interference  brought 
upon  him. 

"The  subject  of  the  petitions  was  disagreeable  in  itself ;  the  lan 
guage  in  which  they  were  couched  was  offensive.  .  .  .  Many  peti 
tions  were  in  the  same  words,  bearing  internal  evidence  of  concert 
among  their  signers;  many  were  signed  by  women  whose  proper 
sphere  was  far  from  the  field  of  legislation;  all  united  in  a  com 
mon  purpose  which  bespoke  community  of  origin  and  the  superin 
tendence  of  a  general  direction."90 

"'Thirty  Years'  View,  v.  II.,  p.  134. 


IV. 
THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  IT  ANALYZED. 

It  was  in  1819,  when  the  Xorth  began  to  conclude  that  the  posi 
tion  of  slavery  under  the  Constitution  could  be  made  to  mean  very, 
much  in  national  politics.  Since  it  was  the  organization  of  the 
territory  now  occupied  by  Missouri  which  gave  opportunity  for  this 
political  attack  upon  the  existence  o<f  the  slavery  of  the  Southern 
States,  it  will  be  well  to  begin  with  that  occasion  and  see  exaetly 
what  the  issue  was  and  from  what  quarter  it  came. 

1  am  satisfied  that  the  advent  of  the  slavery  question  as  a  national 
political  factor  is  too  often  regarded  or  treated  as  the  commence 
ment  of  the  Northern  agitation  on  the  one  hand,  and  as  the  date 
which  marked  the  elimination  from  the  South  of  the  tendency  and 
effort  to  find  a  safe  means  for  each  State  to  emancipate  her  own 
slaves.  Either  conclusion  must  be  carefully  avoided.  I  have  else 
where  shown  that  not  until  ten  or  fifteen  years  after  the  fierce 
wrangle  over  Missouri's  slavery  rights  and  privileges  did  the  South 
ern  States  abandon  an  attitude  toward  their  slaves  which  unques 
tionably  would,  unimpeded  by  external  forces,  have  resulted  in 
emancipation.  I  have  called  attention  to  the  persistent  annoyance 
of  Congress  by  anti-slavery  petitions, — petitions  unwarranted  by 
the  existing  conditions,  and  which  came  at  a  time  when  they  had 
no  possible  excuse  or  justification,—  to  show  that  long  prior  to  the 
fight  over  Missouri  the  Xorth  had  commenced  and  steadily  per 
sisted  in  harassing  the  country  by  insisting  that  the  demands— 
rather  their  demands  for  them— of  an  admittedly  inferior  and  shift 
less  people  were  paramount  to  the  rights  of  the  incomparably  higher 
class  among  whom  the  inferiors  lived.  Then  in  other  places  I  have 
shown  that  long  before  the  agitation  of  slavery  as  a  political  fac 
tor,  such  unlawful  practices  as  the  underground  railroad  and  wide 
spread  visitations  of  unscrupulous  emissaries  had  begun  their  re 
lentless  goading  which  really  had  more  to  do  with  the  ultimate 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  ,)£> 

position  of  the  South  than  had  the  purely  political  phase  of  the 
anti-slavery  outburst. 

However,  the  significance  of  that  political  legislation  which  we 
comprehensively  include  under  the  common  expression  "Missouri 
Compromise,"  lies  in  its  connection  with  the  after  repeal  in  1854  of 
so  much  of  that  legislation  of  the  Compromise  as  sought  to  restrict 
the  territorial  spread  of  slavery,  which  the  North  claimed  forever 
prohibited  any  State  or  territory  thereafter  erected  north  of  36°  30' 
from  settling  its  own  domestic  and  local  slavery  questions. 

In  1819  there  were  twenty-two  States;  ten  of  these  had  made 
laws  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  the  undoubted  result  of 
which  was  to  send  the  slaves,  in  a  few  instances  south,  for  sale,  in 
most  cases  out  of  the  United  States.  Even  at  that  time  in  some 
Northern  States  the  laws  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  had 
not  yet  wholly  extinguished  that  institution.  In  New  York,  for 
example,  slavery  did  not  become  extinct  before  1827,  and  only  chil 
dren  born  of  slaves  after  1804  were  emancipated  in  New  Jersey  in 
1820;  living  slaves  in  that  State  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
emancipation  act  were  never  freed.  Rhode  Island,  too,  only  eman 
cipated  those  to  be  born  after  a  specified  date, — facts  which  always 
strike  the  South  peculiarly  since  the  condition  of  the  slave  was  al 
ways  made  second  to  the  financial  interests  of  the  Northern  mas 
ters. 

As  society  and  industrial  development  were  in  the  ante-bellum 
days,  in  slave  communities  there  was  but  one  possibly  profitable 
branch  of  industry — agriculture.  So  that  in  1819  the  agricultural 
States  were  the  slave-holding  States,  in  which  emancipation  had 
as  yet  had  no  legislative  beginning,  and  these  were  equally  balanced 
by  the  number  of  those  wrhere  slavery  was  dying  or  for  economic  rea 
sons  had  entirely  disappeared.  These  economic  and  industrial  dis 
tinctions  were  the  basis  for  the  political  division,  and  hence  the  po 
litical  power  in  the  Senate  was  equally  divided.  Up  to  1819  the 
phenomenal  territorial  growth  of  this  country  had  hardly  been  a 
dream.  But  when  the  territory  of  Missouri  came  to  ask  for  admis 
sion  it  was  at  once  seen  that,  it  being  a  soil  and  climate  mostly  in 
viting  to  agriculture,  the  political  equilibrium  of  Congress  was 
threatened. 

In  the  usual  way  a  bill  was  introduced  in  Congress  for  the  recog- 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

nition  of  Missouri  as  a  member  of  the  Union.  Tallmadge,  of  New 
York,  offered  an  amendment  which  provided  for  prohibiting  the 
further  introduction  of  slaves  and  also  emancipating  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five  all  slave  children  thereafter  born  in  the  new  State.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  territory  had  10,000  negro  slaves.01 
I  have  elsewhere  discussed  their  origin  and  the  laws  which  had  fos 
tered  their  increase.  This  proposed  amendment  immediately  raised 
a  question  both  of  fairness  and  Constitutionality.  Unlike  the 
French  slaveholders  of  the  Northwest  Territory  at  the  time,  of  the 
passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  many  slaveholder's  in  the  Missouri 
Territory  had  gone  from  the  States,  and  were  both  used  to  local  self- 
government  and  competent  for  its  exercise.  All  of  the  slavehold 
ers  who  came  to  the  United  States  with  the  territory  from  which 
Missouri  was  taken,  had  their  slaves  secured  to  them  by  treaty  to 
which  the  United  States  was  an  informed  and  willing  party.92  Tall- 
madge  and  his  coadjutors  made  a  great  parade  of  the  evil  of  slavery, 
both  real  and  imaginary,  all  of  which,  while  it  had 'no  real  connec 
tion  with  the  issue,  only  served  to  arouse  sympathy  by  a  blind  recog 
nition  of  inferior  interests  and  neglected  the  fact  that  these  were 
in  direct  conflict  with  superior.  No  considerable  number  denied 
the  evil  of  slavery;  in  fact,  as  Lucien  Carr  says,  on  that  point  the 
South  went  further  than  the  North.  To  get  rid  of  it  and  avoid  i 
greater  evil  was  the  point.  No  one  then  suspected  the  continuance 
of  the  importation  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries.  As  Samuel 
A.  Foot,  a  representative  from  Connecticut,  said,  "The  Missouri 
question  did  not  involve  the  question  of  freedom  or  slavery,  but 
merely  whether  slaves  now  in  the  country  might  le  permitted  to 
reside  in  the  proposed  new  State;  and  whether  Congress  or  Mis 
souri  possessed  the  power  to  decide"  The  Territory,  or  District, 
of  Maine  was  about  ready  to  ask  for  admission  as  a  State ;  her  Con 
stitution  made  no  discrimination  except  as  to  paupers  and  Indians 
not  taxed.  It  was  ^well  understood  that  her  geographical  position 
had  decreed  her  a  non-slave-holding  State.  For  years  a  District  in 
Massachusetts,  it  was  well  understood  that  with  reference  to  na 
tional  questions  the  parent  State  had  molded  her  politics.  Maine 
determined  the  qualifications  for  her  citizenship,  and  decided  the 


"Rhodes.  Hist,  of  the  IT.  S.,  v.  I.,  p.  30. 
MU.  S.  Charters  and  Constitutions,  687-689. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  57 

legal  status  of  her  people.  People  of  Maine  or  those  of  other 
Northern  States  would  not  have  admitted  the  power  of  Congress  to 
make  her  recognize  slavery  as  a  condition  precedent  to  her  admis 
sion.  Indeed,  they  would  correctly  have  argued,  no  such  power  ex 
isted  with  Congress  simply  because  the  Constitution  had  left  the 
slavery  question  outside  of  Congressional  jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  State  irrespective  of  its  will  must  have  im 
plied  equal  power  to  create  slavery  under  the  same  conditions. 
Then,  in  all  the  Territories  erected  out  of  the  Xorthwest  Territory, 
and  no  less  in  the  attitude  toward  Maine,  Congress  had  set  a  pre 
cedent  by  allowing  each  either  to  recognize  or  prohibit  slavery  as 
a.  majority  of  the  people  in  each  locality  demanded  (see  infra), 
and  finally  to  make  such  a  constitutional  disposition  of  it  as  each 
State,  unimpeded  by  Congressional  interference,  had  deemed  it 
wise.  Like  privileges  "in  all  respects  whatsoever"  was  Missouri's 
demand  under  the  Constitution. 

It  is  singular  that  not  a  single  argument  which  Ehodes03  says  was 
advanced  for  the  support  of  the  conditioning  amendment  was 
tenable.  (1)  The  restriction  imposed  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
as  construed  under  the  Constitution  did  not  amount  to  a  condition 
precedent  to  the  admission  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois;  (2)  the 
amendment  did  violate  the  treaty  with  France;94  (3)  the  question 
of  moral. evil  was  wholly  irrelevant,  as  much  so  as  the  right  or 
wrong  of  selling  liquor  would  be  in  a  trial  under  an  indictment 
against  one  for  selling  without  a  license. 

On  the  question  put  before  Congress  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
amendment  should  be  sustained  and  the  State  restricted  against 
her  will,  all  the  Southern  votes  were  in  the  negative,  and  by  the  aid 
of  one  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  one  from  Pennsylvania,  two 
from  Illinois,  and  the  two  from  Delaware  it  was  defeated  in  the 
Senate, — the  vote  standing  sixteen  for  restriction  and  twenty-two 
against  it.95  At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  1820,  the  compro 
mise  feature,  as  it  is  called,  appeared.  Senator  Thomas,  of  Illinois, 
introduced  a  kind  of  addendum  to  the  Missouri  bill  providing  for 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  outside  of  Missouri  and  in  the  Louisiana 


93Hist.  of  the  U.  S..  v.  I.,  p.  31. 

MLucien  Carr,  Hist,  of  Mo.,  p.  144  :  Benton's  Abridgement,  v.  XIII.,  p.  33. 

95Rhodes'  Hist,  of  the  U.   S.,  v.  I.,  p.  32. 


XOKTJIERX  REBELL10X  AXD  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

•purchase  and  north  of  30°   30'.     As  is  well  known,  this  measure 
was  adopted. 

But  the  adoption  of  this  provision  did  not  admit  Missouri  to 
statehood.      Within  the   territory   itself   the   agitation   which   had 
filled  the  nation  had  not  been  without  its  fruits.    Already  the  neces 
sity  for  the  South's  taking  defensive  steps  had  begun  to  appear. 
In  her  Constitution  Missouri  forbade  her  legislature  to  interfere 
with  slavery.     Xotwithstanding  the  compromise  feature,  as  it  is 
commonly  termed,  had  already  passed,  yet  much  opposition  was 
found  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  under  her  constitution  with 
its  negro  provisions.     For  several  reasons  it  is  important  to  know 
what  produced  her  constitutional  attitude  both  towards  slavery  and 
free  negroes.      Thos.   H.   Benton,   strongly  anti-slavery,  who  was 
Missouri's  Senator  for  thirty  years,  says,  "This  prohibition  .  .  .  was 
the  effect  of  the  Missouri  controversy  and  of  foreign  interference, 
and  was  adopted  for  the  sake  of  peace,  for  the  sake  of  internal  tran- 
quility."     He  tells  us  that  it  was  at  his  instance  that  the  prohibi 
tions  in  the  constitution  were  placed  there,  and  that  he  was  "equally 
opposed  to  agitation  and  slavery  extension,"90     There  was  another 
clause,   the  first  of  its  kind  in  a   Southern  constitution,   though 
Massachusetts   had   already  set   a   legislative  precedent,   to  which 
Northern   Congressmen  professed   to  find  serious   objections,   and 
that  was  the  provision  "authorizing  the  legislature  to  prohibit  the 
emigration  of  free  people  of  color  into  the  State."    Finally  the  ob 
jection  was  surmounted — an  objection  which  "was  only  a  mask  to 
the  real  cause  of  the  opposition  and  since  shown  to,  be  so  by  the 
facility  with  which  many  States,  then  voting  in  a  body  against  the 
admission  of  Missouri  on  that  account,"  for  years  thereafter  ex 
cluded  "the  whole  class  of  free  colored  emigrant  population  from 
their  borders,  and  without  question,  by  statute,  or  by  constitutional 
amendment."9'     Pausing  a  moment  to  look  back  from  the  initial  of 
Southern  prohibition  against  free  negroes,  we  find   that  already 
precedents  had  been  set  by  the  State  of  Ohio,  Northern  throughout 
her  history,  by  Indiana,  and   Illinois— a  prohibition  necessarv  in 
Missouri  to  secure  internal  tranquility  and  to  avoid  a  dangerous 
element  of  foreign  interference. 


""Thirty  Years'  View,  v.  I.,  p.  0. 
07I-b..  10. 


SOUTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  o9 

111  1854  we  see  tlie  entire  country  gathered  in  mortal  combat 
either  actually  or  in  sympathy  with  the  one  side  or  the  other  on  the 
plains  of  Kansas.  How  came  them  there,  involves  a  study  of  the 
repeal  of  the  prohibitive  addendum  in  the  Missouri  bill,  hi  that 
year  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  introduced  a  bill  for  the  or 
ganization  of  a  Territory  from  western  lands  then  yet  inhabited 
by  the  Indians.  After  some  amendment  and  delay  the  bill  provided 
for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Xebraska, 
and  is,  therefore,  known  as  the  Kansas-Xebraska  bill.  This  bill  re 
pealed  the  clause — the  addendum — in  the  Missouri  admission  bill, 
which  had  prohibited  slavery  so  long  as  it  should  remain  Territory  in 
that  part  of  the  country  covered  by  the  Louisiana  purchase  north  of 
3(>°  30'.  The  repealing  bill  itself  gives  reasons  for  this  action,  (1)  be 
cause  such  prohibition  was  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  fairness  held  by  a 
majority  in  the  Congress  of  1850:  and  (2}  because  it  was  "the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
State  or  Territory  or  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu 
tions  in  their  own  way  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States/'  It  also  provided  that  when  this  Territory  came  to 
ask  admission  to  the  Union  as  a  State  or  States  it  should  be  re 
ceived  with  or  "without  slavery  as  their  constitutions  may  provide."' 
This  was  exactly  what  every  State  in  the  Xorth  and  California  on 
the  Pacific  had  done  for  herself  and  according  to  her  own  views, 
and  each  had  passed  such  laws  on  slavery  as  her  interest  had  dic 
tated, — in  all  respects  former  new  States  and  Territories  had  regu 
lated  their  own  domestic  matters,  and  it  was  thought  but  right  that 
the  same  privileges  be  accorded  to  any  other  States  yet  to  become 
a  part  of  this  Union.  The  hill  became  a  law;  and  since,  in  the 
words  of  a  former  President  of  the  United  States,  its  fairness 
"could  not  be  withstood  on  its  merits."08  so  it  was  made  the  oppor 
tunity  for  one  of  the  greatest  political  strategic  moves  in  the  his 
tory  of  our  country.  To  fully  appreciate  the  significance  of  this 
movement  we  must  look  carefully  to  the  Constitutionality  of  the 
repeal,  its  fairness,  and  propriety.  The  objections  to  the  Kansas- 
Xebraska  bill  and  the  methods  for  defeating  its  normal  results  give 
us  the  kev  to  the  Xorthern  motives  and  intention?. 


"Appendix  Congressional  Globe.  34  Cong.,  p.  0. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

The   Constitutionality  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  cannot   be 
seriously  questioned.     It  was  in  full  accord,  and  so  recognized  by 
the  majority  in  two  different  Congresses,  with  the  principles  upon 
which  the  States  ratified  the  Constitution.    When  the  bill  was  pend 
ing  before  Congress,  Mr.  Douglas,  who  has  the  credit  for  being  its 
most  active  advocate,  voiced  the  sentiment  of  by  far  the  greater 
majority  of  the  whole  people  of  the  Union  when  he  said,  "It  is  due 
the  South;  it  is  due  the  Constitution."99     Nevertheless,  the  aboli 
tion  element  in  the  North  set  up  a  loud  protest.     They  burned  in 
effigy  Douglas  and  other  Northern  representatives  who,  "truer  to 
the  Constitution  than  to  the  prejudices  of  their  constituents,"  voted 
for  the  bill,  and  renewed  with  increased  energy  their  unholy  cru 
sade.     Aside  from  the  false  position  of  moraf  duty  which  I  have 
mentioned,  they  justified  themselves  upon  three  grounds:  (1)  The 
reopening  of  the  Territory  to  the  normal  conditions  of  settlement 
was  alleged  to  be  "bad  faith"  or  "violated  contract,"     (2)     Slavery, 
they  claimed,  would  now  grow  so  powerful,  that  is,  the  agricultural 
States  would  so  increase,  that  its  political  power  would  never  again 
be  overcome;  and  (3)  that  it  would  be  the  cause  of  re-legalizing 
African  slave  importations  and  increase  the  import  trade. 
These  objections  deserve  examination  in  detail. 
1.  "Bad  faith  and  violated  contract."     There  was  no  foundation 
whatever  for  this  charge.    The  addendum  to  the  Missouri  admission 
bill,  which  imposed  conditions  on  United  States  territory  north  of 
06°  30',  was  a  mere  act  of  Congress,  and  neither  before  nor  since 
has  the  right  of  Congress  to  repeal  a  former  act  ever  been  ques 
tioned.     Such  things  are  done  at  every  session.    As  quoted  by  Mr. 
Robinson,  Congressman  Meacham,  of  Vermont,  said,  "I  look  at 
that  compromise  as  a  contract,  a  thing  done  for  a  consideration, 
and  that  the  parties  to  that  contract  are  bound  in  honor  to  execute 
it  in  good  faith."     Mr.  Thayer,  of  Massachusetts,  says  that  the 
South  overthrew  a  "time-honored  compact,  and  subjected  herself  to 
a  charge  of  bad  faith."    Mr.  Robinson  says,  "The  free-soil  men  were 
roused  with  fresh  zeal"  and  determined  to  "demand  reparation  for 
this  bad  faith."1'     The  words  "violated  contract,"  "broken  compro 
mise,"  "bad  faith,"  etc.,  furnished  texts  from  which  some  Northern 


"Spring,  Hist,  of  Kansas,  p,  3. 
100Kansas  Conflict,  p.  20. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  61 

Congressmen  contrived  to  fill  considerable  space  in  the  Congres 
sional  Globe.  Mr.  Goodrich,  of  Massachusetts,  and  others  of  his 
contemporaries,  lost  no  chance  to  vociferate  from  these  texts.  Mr. 
Phillips,  of  Alabama,  and  some  of  his  able  contemporaries  at  the 
time  fully  met  these  false  alarms.  As  pointed  out  by  Southern 
representatives  in  1854,  those  of  the  Xorthen  people  who  were  op 
posed  to  the  Missouri  admission  bill  and  its  prohibitive  addendum 
never  did  accept  either  it  or  its  conditions  or  acquiesce  in  their  pas 
sage.101  The  opponents  to  the  settlement  of  the  Missouri  question 
never  ceased  to  heap  popular  insults  and  indignities  upon  those 
who  voted  for  that  settlment.  Hence  it  was  never  accepted  by  its 
opponents  as  binding,  and  so  failed  in  the  'essential  of  mutuality  be 
tween  contracting  parties;  and  since  it  had  no  contract  nature,  it 
was  no  more  than  the  merest  legislative  enactment,  But  the  truth 
about  the  matter  is  that  the  Northern  people,  in  the  main,  repudi 
ated  what  we  call  the  Missouri  Compromise  until  in  its  repeal  they 
saw  what  they  thought  threatened  their  political  power.  When  in 
1820  the  Missouri  measures  became  law,  the  Xorth  cried  out  in  pro 
test;  when  in  1854  the  prohibitive  measure  was  repealed,  they  again 
cried  for  "the  flesh  pots  of  Egypt/7 

During  all  these  protests  the  South  could  not  help  but  feel  that 
the  inconsistency  of  the  Xorthern  position  was  without  a  parallel. 
As  I  have  said,  the  slavery  recognition  in  the  Constitution  was,  like 
all  national  compacts  and  practically  like  all  legislation,  a  compro 
mise  as  much  so  as  the  settlement  of  the  Missouri  question.  But 
more,  the  Constitution  was  not  a  legislative  enactment,  In  the  con 
vention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  with  one  single  exception, 
all  the  States  represented  were  slaveholding.  Some  of  the  States 
said  plainly  that  if  some  recognition  of  slavery  was  not  made  they 
would  never  ratify  the  Constitution ;  would  remain  out  of  the  new 
Union,  which  would  have  left  them  free,  sovereign  and  separate  re 
publics.  The  Constitutional  recognition  of  the  legal  existence  of 
slavery  in  the  States  was,  therefore,  made  to  secure  the  cooperation 
of  all  the  States,  because  a  refusal  of  any  one  State  to  join  the  new 
Union  was  recognized  to  portend  danger  to  the  new  Union  Kepub- 
lic.  Upon  the  strength  of  this  compromise  Congress  passed  laws. 

101  Jas.  K.  Hosmer,  Ph.  D..  LL.D.  (Minn.),  A  Short  Hist,  of  the  Miss.  Valley, 
p.  166. 


NOIITHEHX  KEBELLIOX  AXD  SOUTHERN  SECESS1OX. 

The  South  contended  that  it  was  the  greater  breach  of  faith  or  vio 
lation  of  compromise  to  nullify  laws  passed  and  reaffirmed  by  Con 
gress  pursuant  to  the  great  original  compromise,  than  the  legiti 
mate  repeal  of  past  legislation.  Sec.  3,  Article  IV.,  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  says,  "Xo  person  held  to  service  or  labor 
in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall, 
m  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from 
such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  upon  claim  of  the  party 
to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."  Xo  one  has  ever  ques 
tioned  that  this  applies  to  runaway  (or  enticed  away)  slaves.  At 
the  time  it  became  the  organic  law  of  the  land  its  moral  right  or 
validity  was  not  questioned.  But  afterward  certain  Xorthern  States 
took  it  upon  themselves  to  be  the  moral  arbiters  of  American  legis 
lation,  and  ten  States — ten  legislative  bodies  sworn  to  pass  no  law 
in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,— passed  State  enactments  which 
nullified  what  they  had  sworn  to  revere.  This  was  the  moral  di 
lemma  of  the  Xorth  before  the  repeal  of  the  so-called  Missouri  Com 
promise, — before  Congress  gave  the  people  of  Kansas  the  right  to 
decide  for  themselves  what  their  attitude  upon  domestic  servitude 
should  be. 

The  editorial  introduction  to  "A  Personal  Liberty  Act  (1855)" 
by  A.  B.  Hart,  Harvard  University,  as  contained  in  his  historical 
handbook,  is  liable  to  mislead.  He  says,  "This  statute  is  a  fair  sam 
ple  of  those  passed  by  nine  other  States  in  the  Xorth.  They  were 
not  caused  by  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  itself  so  much  as  by  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  Act."1'  "They  were"  caused  by  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  or  were  as  much  without  excuse  as  they  were  without  justifi 
cation—either  horn  of  the  dilemma  leaves  them  nullification  of  Fed 
eral  laws.  The  Act  which  Prof.  Hart  gives  is  itself  only  a  stronger 
form  of  a  similar  Act  passed  in  1843 — eleven  years  prior  to  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  For  twenty  years  nullification  of  the  na 
tional  slave  laws  had  been  in  one  form  or  another  attempted  by 
XoTthern  States;103  and  from  Iowa  to  Maine  legislatures  and  rebel 
lious  mass-meetings,  before  the  Kansas-Xebraska  bill,  had  echoed 
such  sentiments  concerning  the  United  States  law  of  1850  as,  "Dis 
obedience  to  the  enactment  is  obedience  to  God";  or,  "Any  man  who 


102Am.  Hist.  Told  by  Contemporaries.   TV.,   p.  93. 
103Wilson,  Division  and  Reunion,  p.  208. 


XOirniELlX    KEBELL10X  AND  SOUTHEKX  SECESSION. 

in  any  way  aids  in  the  execution  of  this  law  should  be  regarded  as 
false  to  God  and  totally  unfit  for  civilized  society."11 

So  it  is  seen  that  the  cry  of  "bad  faith."  or  "broken  contract/7  is 
a  hollow  emptiness.  The  abolition  element  for  political  gain  had 
seized  upon  slavery  as  the  cudgel  with  which  to  fight  its  way  to  po 
litical  control,  and  the  cry  of  "Stop  thief"  was  but  a  subterfuge. 
The  Xorth  complained  of  the  harshness  of  the  fugitive  slave  laws, 
but  forgot  that  these  complaints  would  have  had  absolutely  no 
instance  of  justification — few  as  there  were — but  for  the  folly  and 
"bad  faith"  of  tho'se  who  encouraged  and  aided  and  incited,  by 
sending  emissaries,  incendiary  books,  circulars,  papers,  etc.,  the 
slaves  to  leave  their  Southern  homes. 

In  the  great  throb  of  expansion,  which  made  our  country  to  vi 
brate  like  a  reed,  concessions  and  readjustments  from  all  sides  were 
unavoidable.  Of  these  the  South,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  made  a> 
many  as  did  her  northern  sisters.  But  at  no  time  was  the  prime 
motive  factor  one  of  moral  or  religious  consideration;  all  the  while 
and  all  the  time  both  sides  acted  from  questions  of  pecuniary  policy. 
To  understand  fully  this  fact  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  recall 
some  of  the  history  of  our  country  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  Mis 
souri  measures  by  Congress.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ad 
dendum  to  the  Missouri  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territories 
while  in  a  territorial  state  outside  of  Missouri  and  north  of  36°  30', 
applied  only  to  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  At  the  time  this  provision 
became  operative  (1820),  the  United  States  had  no  claim,  except 
a  joint  occupancy  with  Great  Britain  of  the  Oregon  country  (be 
gun  in  1818,  ended  in  1846),  further  west  than  the  western  border 
of  Louisiana ;  thence  with  the  Red  river  west  to  the  present,  boun 
dary  of  Oklahoma ;  thence  north  to  the  Arkansas  river ;  thence  west 
to  the  present  boundary  of  Colorado,  and  thence  north  to  the  Ore 
gon  country.  All  to  the  west  and  south  of  this  territory  belonged  to 
Mexico.  From  the  very  first  the  Xorth  had  opposed  the  purchase 
of  the  Louisiana  boundary.  This  opposition  was  one  purely  po 
litical  in  its  origin.  John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  speak 
ing  of  the  proposed  purchase,  said,  "One  inevitable  consequence  of 
the  annexation  would  be  to  diminish  the  relative  weight  and  in- 


104Smith.  The  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties,  p.  227. 


G4  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

fluence  of  the  northern  section.""  Of  this  opposition  Mr.  Sparks, 
of  the  Chicago  University,  remarks  that  the  "New  England  inter 
est  lay  at  sea,  and  she  had  no  sympathy  with  southern  agriculture. 
Even  her  infant  manufactories  would  desire  to  prevent  western  mi 
gration  for  the  sake  of  retaining  workmen.  Such  considerations, 
founded  on  inherited  conservatism,  were  engendering  an  obstruc 
tionist  feeling  in  that  section  characteristic  to  this  day."11 

In  the  territorial  division  as  made  by  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
the  North  secured  an  advantage  which  she  showed  was  fully  appre 
ciated  when  it  came  to  a  question  of  repealing  the  restrictive  clause 
or  addendum.  To  the  south  of  the  line  set  for  the  expansion  of 
agricultural  interests  where  slaves  might  be  employed,  were  less  than 
224,445  square  miles,  while  to  the  north  of  that  line  were  over  964,- 
067  square  miles  of  territory.  As  Mr.  Sparks  remarks,  "This  meant 
one  or  possibly  two  states  for  the  South,  and  at  least  six  or  seven 
for  the  North."107  It  was  about  that  time  that  Mexico  revolted 
against  Spain,  and  no  one  could  guess  or  even  suspect  that  we  should 
afterwards  acquire  Texas  any  more  than  it  was  then  suspected  that 
we  should  by  this  time  own  important  islands  thousands  of  miles 
from  our  mainland.  This  division  was  unfair  to  the  South,  and 
the  advantage  it  gave  the  North  was  one  reason  why  the  repeal  of 
the  limiting  provision  was  opposed  so  strongly  in  1854. 

That  section  of  Mexico  next  to  the  United  States  seceded,  and  in 
1837  applied  for  admission  to  the  Union  as  the  State  of  Texas.  It  had 
previously  been  recognized  as  the  Republic  of  Texas  by  England, 
France,  Belgium,  and  the  United  States.  Of  course,  this  application 
raised  a  political  storm;  the  annexation  of  Texas  meant  more 
strength  in  the  Senate  for  agricultural  interests,  and  these  interests 
had  little  in  common  with  those  of  the  North  as  they  were  at  that 
time.  It  is  plain  that  the  opposition  to  the  admission  of  Texas  was 
almost  wholly  based  upon  purely  political  considerations.  Michigan 
struck  the  keynote  of  the  opposition  in  the  resolution  unanimously 
passed  by  her  legislature  April  2,  1838,  when  she  declared,  "And, 
whereas,  the  extension  of  this  General  Government  over  so  large  a 
country  on  the  southwest,  between  w^hich  and  that  of  the  original 
states,  there  is  so  little  affinity  and  less  identity  of  interests  would 


105Sparks.  Expansion  of  the  American  People.  201,  n.  I. 
106Ib.,  201. 
107Ib,  311. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  65 

tend,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  greatly  to  disturb  the  safe 
and  harmonious  operations  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
and  put  in  eminent  danger  the  continuance  of  this  happy  Union." 
Massachusetts,  by  her  legislature,  in  protesting,  declared  that  the 
annexation  of  Texas  would  "disturb  the  relations  of  the  different 
sections"  of  the  country  in  Congress.  That  is,  she  was  excited  be 
cause 'the  political  predominance  of  the  South  seemed  to  loom 
across  her  pathway.  Maine  protested  through  the  lower  House  of 
her  legislature  because  she  said  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  "di 
rectly  calculated  to  disturb  our  foreign  relations,  to  destroy  our  do 
mestic  peace,  and  to  dismember  our  blessed  Union."  William  H. 
Seward,  at  one  time  governor  of  New  York,  for  years  a  member  of 
the  United  States  Senate,  and  finally  member  of  Lincoln's  cabinet, 
on  July  13,  1844,  in  a  speech  to  "one  of  the  largest  assemblages  ever 
convened  in  Western  New  York,"  said,  "Texas  and  slavery  are  at 
war  with  the  interests,  the  principles,  and  the  sympathies  of  all. 
The  integrity  of  the  Union  depends  on  the  result.  To  increase  the 
slave-holding  power  is  to  subvert  the  Constitution ;  to  give  a  fearful 
preponderance,  which  may,  and  possibly  will,  be  speedily  followed 
by  demands  to  which  the  democratic  free  labor  States  cannot  yield, 
and  the  demand  of  which  will  be  made  the  ground  for  secession, 
nullification,  and  disunion."108 

No  fight  on  moral  grounds  was  made  in  Congress  or  by  any  im 
portant  number  of  individuals  in  the  North  against  the  admission 
of  Texas  or  other  territory  where  slavery  was  or  might  be  legal. 
And  as  a  matter  of  history,  the  fact  is  well  known  that  not  until 
nearly  1840  had  the  North  caught  the  idea  that  any  cause  will  have 
more  general  support  if  it  can  claim  moral  considerations  as  an 
excuse  for  its  existence.  Northern  leaders  saw  that  by  furnishing 
erroneous  information  with  reference  to  the  condition  of  slavery  in 
the  South,  and  that  by  painting  a  picture  of  that  institution  in  such 
a  light  as  would  be  repulsive  to  the  religious  convictions  of  men, 
much  could  be  gained  for  political  support  that  would  never  be 
reached  otherwise.  Until  false  figures,  erroneous  representations, 
books  which  had  no  foundation  in  truth,  and  inflammatory  litera 
ture,  did  their  work,  the  abolition  movement  found  widespread  op 
position  in  the  North.  While  this  opposition  never  entirely  disap- 

108Works,  v.  III.,  p.  253. 
5 


66  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

peared,  yet  it  surrendered  to  the  more  aggressive  and  less  scrupulous 
element.  It  was  but  natural  that  Northern  born  men  should  stand 
by  their  leaders  when  the  crucial  crisis  came,  even  though  they  be 
lieved,  as  many  did,  that  the  desired  end  might  have  been  reached 
had  other  methods  been  adopted.  I  do  not  forget  to  give  the 
proper  credit  to  the  comparatively  few  honest  moralists  who  com 
bined  their  efforts  with  a  large  number  of  designing  politicians; 
but  just  the  same,  the  whirlpool  which  was  engendered  engulfed  the 
nation. 

The  fact  that  the  abolition  number  in  the  North  for  many  years 
was  small,  did  not  indicate  a  large  pro-slavery  element.  It  simply 
meant  that  Northerners  generally  believed  in  allowing  the  South 
to  solve  her  own  slave  question  just  as  had  the  several  States  of 
every  section  of  the  North — from  New  England  to  Illinois  and  Min 
nesota  and  California — just  as  did  Old  England,  and  as  were  the 
nations  of  the  earth  doing. 

Let  me  say  here,  once  for  all,  that  the  claim  that  the  "sin"  of 
slavery  must  find  an  atonement  in  the  shedding  of  white  blood,  is 
forever  refuted  by  the  fact  that  England  suppressed  slavery  and 
the  slave-trade,  and  remunerated  her  slave-holders,  too,  and  not  a 
drop  of  blood  did  she  shed.  I  feel  sure  that  the  unanimous  verdict 
of  the  learned  world  is  that  no  other  people  or  nation,  or  the  indi 
viduals  of  any  other  nation  or  part  of  a  nation,  ever  committed  more 
sin  against  the  negro  than  did  England.  The  history  of  the  destruc 
tion  of  slavery  in  English  dependencies  unquestionably  refutes  the 
false  theory  that  America  could  rid  herself  of  slavery  only  through 
a  blood  atonement. 

As  soon  as  the  struggle  over  the  admission  of  Texas  was  over,  in 
appreciation  of  the  fact  that  we  were  liable  to  acquire  other  terri 
tory  from  Mexico,  David  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1846, 
^brought  before  Congress  a  bill  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  territory 
which  might  be  secured  by  treaty  with  Mexico/'  This  bill  was  lost. 
It  was  called  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  its  promoters  went  before  the 
country  with  a  candidate  (Mr.  Van  Buren,  1848),  but  so  weak  was 
the  party  favoring  slave  prohibition  or  any  national  interference, 
and  so  illy  defined  was  its  position  with  reference  to  slavery  in  the 
territories,  that  it  had  little  support,  and  Gren.  Tyler,  a  native  of 
Virginia,  was  elected.  This  shows  that  the  Southern  people  were 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  67 

by  no  means  peculiar  in  their  views  of  slavery;  and  that  the  peo 
ple  in  the  North  who  claimed  to  be  anti-slavery  on  moral  grounds 
were  not  strong  enough  to  have  had  any  appreciable  weight  in  the 
emancipation  of  New  England  slaves.  In  another  division  1  discussed 
the  growth  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  on  Northern  soil,  and  examined 
the  meaning  of  the  cooperation  of  the  North  with  the  South  in 
passing  national  slave  laws.  In  September,  1849,  the  question  of 
local  or  national  control  of  slavery  came  again  before  the  people. 
Delegates  representing  the  Territory  of  California  met  and  framed 
a  State  Constitution,  and  inserted  a  clause  in  prohibition  of  slavery. 
Upon  this  Constitution  she  asked  for  admission  to  the  Union.  At 
once  the  Northern  anti-slavery  advocates  espoused  her  cause,  and 
argued  that  she,  in  her  local  capacity,  as  of  right  -she  might,  had 
settled  the  slavery  question.  This  was  the  precise  doctrine  of  the 
repeal  clause  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  the  position  for 
which  the  South  had  contended,  and  so  Southern  members  of  Con 
gress  voted  with  the  North  for  the  admission  of  California.  How 
ever,  there  was  considerable  opposition  to  the  admission  of  that 
State,  not  because  of  the  doctrine  involved,  but  because  the  South 
insisted  that  the  North  was  not  acting  fairly  on  the  slave  question. 
A  large  part  of  California  is  south  of  36°  30',  and  a  fair  application 
of  the  restrictive  clause  would  have  preserved  that  part  at  least  free 
from  restriction.  Nevertheless,  the  Northern  party  exhibited  "bad 
faith,"  and  themselves,  declare  Julian  Hawthorne109  and  other 
Northern  historians,  proposed  a  violation  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise.  It  was  contended,  and  rightly,  that  under  the  Constitution 
Congress  had  passed  a  law  providing  that  escaped  slaves  should  be 
returned.  It  was  pointed  out  that  the  North  not  only  refused  to  re 
turn  slaves  that  had  run  away,  but  that  her  citizens  were  aiding 
them  to  escape  and  inciting  them  in  every  possible  way  to  do  so; 
and  that  Northern  States  themselves  had  become  parties  to  these 
unlawful  acts  by  their  legislative  enactments  in  nullification  of  the 
laws  of  Congress  passed  pursuant  to  the  Constitution.  It  was 
readily  seen  that  when  it  came  to  strengthening  political  power  the 
Northern  politicians  were  very  much  in  favor  of  the  right  of  a 
State  to  decide  her  local,  domestic  affairs.  This  contradictory  po 
sition  of  the  North  helped  to  augment  the  bitterness  between  the 

1MHist  U.  S.,  Vol.  3. 


63 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


two  sections,  and  to  make  each  slower  to  make  concessions  to  the 
other.  Clay,  the  great  Kentiickian,  has  the  credit  of  being  the 
temporary  peacemaker.  He  came  forward  with  what  is  known  as 
the  Omnibus  Bill,  so  named  because  of  its  numerous  provisions. 
It  provided  (1)  for  the  admission  of  California  as  a  free  State; 
(2)  the  making  of  four  States  out  of  the  new  Texas  territory,  with 
the  provision  that  these  States  should  determine  for  themselves  the 
question  of  slavery;  (3)  the  establishment  of  the  Territories  of 
New  Mexico  and  Utah  without  slave  conditions;  (4) 'the  establish 
ment  of  the  boundary  between  Texas  and  New  Mexico;  (5)  the  en 
actment  of  a  new  law  for  the  recovery  of  runaway  slaves;  (6)  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  which  mar 
ket  had  been  supplied  by  the  ships  of  Northern  men,  thus  cutting 
cff  a  considerable  source  of  revenue  to  a  large  class  of  Northern 
capitalists.  This  bill  is  sometimes  denominated  the  Compromise 
of  1850.  It  shows  concessions  from  both  sides,  and  demonstrates 
that  political  considerations  and  not  an  awakened  conscience  on  the 
part  of  either  the  North  or  the  South,  led  to  each  new  agitation  of 
slavery. 

We  have,  then,  as  precedents  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  the  or 
ganization  of  all  previous  territories  from  the  earliest  of  the 
original  Northwest  to  California,  and  those  in  the  intervening 
space  which  had  grown  less  rapidly :  Utah  and  New  Mexico,110  which, 
in  the  word's  of  Jas.  K.  Hosmer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  Minnesota, 
were  erected  into  Territories  "with  the  provision  that  the  people 
living  there  should  decide  whether  or  not  slavery  should  exist.""1 
The  opposition  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  left  without  excuse 
or  justification;  precedent,  Congressional  declarations,  the  voice  of 
the  majority  in  the  United  States,  and  the  Constitution,  all  pro 
claimed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  fair,  legal,  and  a  measure  which 
placed  the  new  Territories  upon  an  equal  footing  in  all  respects 
whatsoever  with  all  prior  Territories.  The  results  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  were  so  far-reaching  that  the  other  objections  to  it 
must  be  examined  at  greater  length. 

110Reports  of  Committees,  36  Cong.,  1  sess.,  v.  3,  No.  508,  Min.  R. 
mA  Short  Hist,  of  the  Miss.  Valley   (1901),  p.  169. 


V. 

THE  NATIONAL  CHAEACTEE  OF  SLAVE 
LEGISLATION. 

COTTON  AND  SLAVERY;  SLAVERY  IN  THE  OLD  NORTHWEST;  SLAVERY 

AND  OREGON. 

2.  As  I  said,  there  was  a  certain  objection  urged  by  the  North 
to  the  repeal  of  the  addendum  of  the  Missouri  admission  bill  which 
prohibited  slavery  north  of  36°  30'  and  outside  of  Missouri,  and  that 
was  that  this  repeal  meant  the  spread  of  slavery  to  such  an  extent 
that  it  threatened  the  very  safety  of  the  Eepublic. 

Human  beings  increase  as  rapidly,  food  and  clothing  being  rea 
sonably  obtainable,  in  a  small  area  as  in  a  large  one.  Among  the 
slaves  of  the  Southern  States  every  rational  opportunity  was  given 
for  increase  that  could  have  been  given  in  greater  territorial  area. 
It-s  restriction  to  a  given  territory  did  not  affect  slavery  so  far  as 
the  condition  of  the  negro  himself  was  concerned;  non-restriction 
would,  in  some  instances,  have  given  a  more  healthy  locality  in 
which  to  live  and  labor.  Its  territorial  spread  would  make  more 
agricultural  interests,  and  each  new  agricultural  State  added  po 
litical  weight  to  the  South.  This  made  its  territorial  spread  a  mat 
ter  to  be  feared  by  Northern  politicians ;  and  no  matter  how  little 
of  real  danger  there  was  in  this,  it  served  to  arouse  the  populace. 
Yet  those  who  used  the  argument  that  the  territorial  spread  im 
periled  the  nation  either  did  or  could  have  known  its  untruth,  and 
hence  must  be  held  responsible  for  the  result. 

Let  me  state  more  fully  some  of  the  different  phases  of  the  North 
ern  argument  or  contention,  and  then  look  carefully  to  its  founda 
tion. 

"A  Southern  Oligarchy/'  "a  plutocracy  of  slavocrats,"  and  simi 
lar  appellations  were,  and  too  frequently  yet  are,  gratuitously  ap 
plied  to  the  citizens  of  the  Southern  slave-holding  States.  In  a 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

similar  strain  Mr.  Rhodes112  says,  "The  South  set  aside  the  Mis- 
.oun  Compromise."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  South  did  no  such 
hing.  Neither  did  the  South  enact  the  much-abused  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1850,  nor  that  of  earlier  years,  as  I  have  elsewhere  said. 
\\  hen  Mr.  Rhodes  and  other  Northern  writers  speak  of  the  repeal 
or  setting  aside  of  the  "Missouri  Compromise/'  they  refer  to  the 
repeal  of  the  addendum  to  the  Missouri  admission  bill,  which,  as 
above  shown,  affected  not  Missouri,  but  the  then  unsettled  territory 
to  its  west  and  north,  and  in  which  Congress  attempted  to  prohibit 
slavery  while  these  new  lands  should  remain  in  the  territorial  state. 
On  the  first  passage  of  the  repeal  measure  as  contained  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  Senate  vote  was  thirty-seven  for  it  and 
fourteen  against  it."8  In  the  House  it  was  carried  by  a  majority 
of  thirteen.114  And  on  final  vote  (some  amendments  having  been 
made  in  the  House)  it  was  passed  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  thirty- 
five  to  thirteen.115  The  fugitive  slave  law  of  1850  was  likewise 
passed  by  the  aid  of  a  goodly  number  of  Northern  Senators  and 
representatives.  So  that  these  later  chief  Congressional  acts  touch 
ing  slavery  were,  like  the  regulations  of  the  earlier  Congresses  and 
the  slave  provisions  in  the  Constitution,  of  a  more  national  emana 
tion  than  many  of  our  most  cherished  and  respected  laws  enforced 
to-day.  Hence,  the  terms  "slave  power,"  "Southern  Oligarchy/ 
etc.,  as  applied  to  a  party  or  class  peculiar  to  the  Southern  States, 
are  empty  vituperations.  That  they  are  such  is  admitted  in  the 
strangely  inconsistent  claim,  so  loudly  heralded  to  the  world,  that 
as  the  middle  of  the  century  approached  the  "slave  power"  was  mar 
shaling  into  its  ranks  such  numbers  as  threatened  to  fasten  slavery 
forever  upon  the  United  States  of  America.  Northern  abolition 
advocates  were  held  up  as  martyrs,  and  the  appeal  was  sustained  by 
such  instances  as  the  dragging  of  Garrison  through  the  streets  with 
s  rope  around  his  neck,  the  killing  of  Lovejoy  in  1837,  and  the 
burning  of  his  office  by  a  mob  in  Alton,  Illinois;  the  burning  of 
Pennsylvania  Hall,  and  the  destruction  of  the  library  belonging  to 
Whittier,  the  poet,  at  which  time  he  barely  escaped  the  mob  with 
his  life. 


"2Hist.  of  the  TJ.  S.,  v.  I.,  p.  499. 
113Schouler,  Hist.  TJ.  S.,  v.  V.,  p.  289. 
114Tb.,  288. 
115Ib.,  288. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  71 

As  the  rising  sim  of  universal  freedom  shifted  the  shortening 
shadows  which  fell  across  the  march  of  our  nation,  demagogues  took 
advantage  of  the  unavoidable  incidents  of  progress  and  proclaimed 
effects  to  be  causes.  The  history  of  the  anti-slavery  sentiment 
among  the  Southern  people  themselves  suffered  not  least  by  reason 
of  this  mistake.  It  was  usual  to  begin  by  pointing  to  the  prevail 
ing  emancipation  sentiment  throughout  the  South  in  the  first  years 
of  the  last  century.  We  are  told  that  the  much  lauded  Ordinance 
passed  by  Congress  in  1787  for  the  government  of  the  Northwest 
Territory,  secured  against  the  introduction  of  slavery  the  States  of 
Indiana,  Ohio,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  part  of  Minnesota,  into 
which  the  original  Northwest  Territory  has  been  carved.  This  Or 
dinance  was  passed  by  the  feeble  Congress  sitting  under  the  old 
Confederation;  but  eight  States  of  the  thirteen  were  at  the  time 
represented,  and  five  of  these  were  then  regarded  as  Southern 
States.  The  committee  which  favorably  reported  the  bill  had  a  ma 
jority  of  Southern  men.  It  is  admitted  to  be  a  Southern  measure.118 
No  one  now  questions  that  the  leading  Southerners  in  the  first 
years  of  the  last  century  were  anti-slavery  advocates. 

About  1830  the  emancipation  tide  began  to  recede  from  the 
Southern  shores,  and  within  a  very  few  years  the  abolition  advo 
cates  were  practically  all  in  the  Northern  States.  As  late  as  1837 
Bimey,  the  president  of  the  American  Abolition  Society,  which  had 
gathered  within  its  folds  almost  the  entire  abolition  element  of  the 
North,  estimated  that  in  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut, 
Rhode  Island,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Michigan,  and  Illinois  there  were  112,480  abolitionists.117  This  was 
a  very  small  per  cent,  of  the  total  Northern  people.  So  those  who 
agitated  the  question  then,  and  many  who  seek  to  justify  them  now, 
argued  that  the  "slave  power,"  as  they  were  fond  of  calling  the  po 
litical  party  that  had  so  often  predominated,  was  growing  in 
strength.  They  said  this  was  evidenced  not  alone  by  the  decrease  of 
abolitionists  after  the  type  of  Jefferson,  Randolph,  and  such  South 
erners,  but,  in  strange  contradiction  to  the  charge  of  a  dominating 
"Southern  oligarchy  or  plutocracy  of  slave-holders,"  they  pointed 
out  the  national  character  of  the  various  slave  provisions  of  the 


""Hinsdale,  Old  Northwest,  p.  260  :  Rhodes'  Hist,  of  the  TJ.  S.,  v.  I  .  p.  15. 
117The  Anti-Slavery  Examiner,  No.  8,  p.  7. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Union,  and  insisted  that  danger  was  threatened  because  of  the 
large  number  in  the  free  States  themselves  who  voted  side  by  side 
with  Southern  men  in  the  nation's  legislature  at  Washington  in 
enacting  laws  to  enforce  the  Constitutional  provisions  concerning 
slavery;  and  who  voted  to  grant  slave-holders  in  the  Southern  States 
the  identical  privileges  slave-holders  in  the  North  had  enjoyed;  and 
who  endeavored  to  give  the  slaveholder  and  his  home  some  measure 
of  security;  and  who  voted  with  the  South  to  give  citizens  of  new 
Territories  and  States  the  same  privileges  which  citizens  of  the 
older  States  and  the  first  Territories  had  enjoyed  in  forming  their 
respective  constitutions  or  in  regulating  their  internal  affairs.  So 
it  was  argued  that  this  cooperation  of  a  large  element  in  the  North 
with  the  South  meant  the  territorial  spread  of  slavery  until  it  should 
become  irredeemably  an  American  institution.  This  contention 
gave  to  the  latter  years  of  the  anti-slavery  movement  its  greatest 
numbers.  I  shall  here  briefly  state  some  of  the  reasons  which  show 
that  this  argument  was  unsound.  I  propose  to  submit  that  it  was 
not  supported  by  past  history  and  not  borne  out  by  current  events. 
It  was  accompanied  by  false  and,  as  fairly  representative  of  any  con 
siderable  portion  of  the  slave-holding  class,  wholly  misleading  in 
formation  as  to  the  condition  and  treatment  of  the  slaves.  Such 
claims  stirred  and  moved  the  masses  at  the  North,  but  being  false 
in  fact,  and  unsound  in  logic,  and  devoid  of  true  philanthropy  in  re 
sult,  the  secession  which  was  finally  provoked  was  therefore  charge 
able  to  the  aggressors;  and  just  as  the  North  holds  the  South  re 
sponsible  for  the  actions  of  her  leaders,  so  should  the  North  be  held 
responsible  for  the  actions  of  those  who  misinformed  and  misguided 
her  masses. 

First.  Let  us  examine  the  alleged  cause  for  the  decline  of  the 
emancipation  sentiment  in  the  South. 

Many  distinguished  writers  tell  us  that  it  was  the  invention  of 
the  cotton-gin  which  gave  to  slavery  a  new  hold  on  the  South ;  and 
that  it  was  because  the  planter  saw  a  new  source  of  profit  in  his 
slaves  that  caused  him  to  abandon  emancipation  tendencies.  Such 
men  as  Richard  Henry  Dana  insisted  that  "the  lords  of  the  loom 
and  the  lords  of  the  lash/'  as  he  expressed  the  political  situation, 
had  conspired  to  perpetuate  negro  slavery.  Rhodes  says,  "'It  is  more 
than  probable  that  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  prevented  the 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  73 

peaceful  abolition  of  slavery.  .  .  .  Cotton  fostered  slavery;  slavery 
was  the  cause  of  the  war  between  the  States."11  This  is  a  repre 
sentative  Northern  error.  The  cotton-gin  did  procrastinate  the 
emancipation  of  the  Southern  negro;  it  did  nothing  more.  At  its 
greatest  possible  length  in  the  onward  sweep  of  the  world's  progress, 
that  delay  could  not  have  been  fraught  with  any  very  serious  con 
sequences — to  the  nation  most  certainly — provided  all  abnormal 
emancipation  agitation  had  been  absent.  Just  here  is  where  Mr. 
Ehodes'  voluminous  discussion  of  Southern  slavery  fails;  in  so  far 
a?  he  treats  it  at  all,  he  treats  the  abnormal  abolition  agitation  as  a 
result  of  the  slave  conditions;  whereas,  it  was  the  agitation  with  all 
of  its  variety  of  unlawfulness  which  produced  the  conditions,  and 
continued  the  slavery. 

If  there  is  one  point  upon  which  writers  generally  agree  more 
unanimously  than  another,  it  is  that  slave  labor  was  of  an  inferior 
kind,  and  absolutely  not  susceptible  of  any  important  improvement. 
The  products  of  slave  labor,  natural  advantages  of  climate  and 
soil  being  anything  like  equal,  cannot  successfully  compete  with 
those  of  free  labor.  J.  A.  Doyle,  Fellow  of  All  Souls  College,  Ox 
ford,  England,  speaking  of  the  negro  slave,  says  that  "no  attempt 
to  enlarge  his  sphere  of  activity  can  be  attended  with  profit.  The 
time  given  to  the  new  acquisition  is  so  much  waste  and  his  mental 
incapacity  and  absence  of  any  moral  interest  in  his  work  almost 
necessarily  limit  him  to  a  single  task."11 

Not  only  is  the  product  inferior,  but  in  slave  communities  com 
petition  in  labor  is  impossible.  Intelligent  white  labor  avoids 
menial  occupations  in  slave  territory.  Writing  with  reference  to 
the  negro  slave  as  he  was  in  the  Southern  States,  with  all  the  his 
tory  of  those  States  before  him,  Mr.  Doyle,  in  1882,  also  says,  "And 
when  once  negro  slavery  was  firmly  established  any  rival  form  of 
industry  was  doomed.  For  it  is  an  economic  law  of  slavery  that 
when  it  exists  it  must  exist  without  a  rival.  It  can  only  succeed 
when  it  is  a  predominant  form  of  labor."15 

Now,  the  cotton-gin  did  not  belong  to  the  Southern  States  of 
America,  nor  was  theirs  the  only  cotton  country.  During  the  Civil 


nsHist.  of  the  U.  S.,  v.  I.,  p.  26-27. 
""English  Colonies  in  America,  p.  388. 
120Ib,  387. 


74  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

War  at  a  cotton-growers'  conference,  gathered  in  response  to  Eng 
lish  manufacturers,  thirty-five  cotton  growing  countries  were  rep 
resented.     Of  these  Peru,  the  West  Indies,  Brazil,  China,  Italy, 
Turkey,  Greece,  India  (which  alone  cultivates  over  14,000  acres), 
and  Egypt  presented  the  most  formidable  source  of  competition. 
We  are  told  that  "the  colonies  and  dependencies  of  Great  Britain, 
including  India,  seemed  well  able  to  grow  all  the  cotton  that  could 
be  required/'121     The  same  authority  tells  us  that  even  prior  to 
1793,  the  advent  of  the  cotton-gin,  "progressive  improvement  in 
the  cultivation"  of  cotton  had  begun  in  all  these  countries.    Brazil 
lingered  longest  in  the  crude  methods  of  slavery,  and  as  a  result 
these  "rude  and  expensive  methods  of  cultivation"  for  some  years 
operated  against  the  Brazilian  cotton  industry.     Thus  it  was  early 
demonstrated  that  the  free  labor  and  intelligent  interest  employed 
in  the  vast  cotton  fields  of  the  world  made  a  competition  which  noth 
ing  but  improved  methods  and  machinery,  such  as  railroads,  im 
proved  compresses,  intelligent  application  of  fertilizers,  improved 
gins,  and  the  various  other  improvements  over  slave  methods,  such 
as  the  South  everywhere  exhibits  to-day,  enables  her  to  meet  in 
competition  the  cotton  crop  of  the  world.    The  Southern  white  man 
has  joined  the  labor  forces  necessary  to  do  all  this;  during  slave 
days  to  have  him  do  so  was  impossible.    Nor  was  this  all :  outside 
capital,  which  has  done  much  to  destroy  Southern  conservatism, 
could  never  have  entered  the  Southern  market  under  slave  labor. 
These  conditions  of  slavery  made  themselves  early  felt  in  the  more 
northern  of  the  Southern  States.     It  is  a  correct  observation  of 
William  Garrott  Brown,  in  his  1902  course  of  Harvard  University 
historical  lectures,  when  he  says,  "Slavery  in  Virginia  was  a  failure 
as  compared  with  free  labor  in  the  North.  .  .  ."    And  he  further 
states  what  was  an  undisputed  condition  which  was  growing  out  of 
this,  when  he  says,  "By  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  it 
was  clear  that  Virginia  and  the  upper  States  of  the  South,  if  left 
to  themselves,  would  almost  certainly  change  their  industrial  sys 
tem/'122 

So,   while   waiting   for   improved   methods    of   industry   under 
slavery,  other  cotton  countries  would  have  passed  the   Southern 

121Werner's  Enc.  Brit.,  Cotton. 

1BThe  Lower  South  in  American  History,  p.  15. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  75 

States  in  the  excellence  and  amount  of  the  crop,  which  would  have 
forced  planters  to  an  unprofitable  cultivation.  This  would  have 
brought  emancipation  or  bankruptcy — and  unquestionably  bank 
ruptcy  meant  emancipation  for  the  negro.  Egypt  alone  could  have 
produced  this  condition.  Some  years  ago  an  authority  wrote,  "It 
ifc  not  perhaps  too  much  to  say  that  Egypt  is  the  finest  cotton-grow 
ing  country  in  the  world ;  it  is  not  surpassed  in  productiveness  even 
by  the  Southern  States  of  America.  So  firm,  is  the  growth  of  cotton 
established,  and  so  fully  are  both  the  government  and  the  people 
alive  to  its  importance  and  advantages,  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
apprehend  that  it  will  be  allowed  to  decline  or  that  Egypt  will  ever 
lose  its  place  as  a  source  of  supply."12  How  formidable  a  competi 
tor  this  fertile  Nile  country  has  become  is  shown  from  our  most 
recent  (1900)  census  of  the  United  States.  In  it  an  authority  says : 
"The  use  of  Egyptian  cotton  for  the  manufacture  of  fine  fabrics, 
but  more  especially  as  material  for  knit  underwear,  has  grown 
greatly  during  the  last  decade.  .  .  .  Egyptian  cotton  possesses  some 
peculiarities  which  adapt  it  especially  to  the  use  to  which  it  is  put. 
It  is  especially  desirable,  on  account  of  its  natural  silkiness,  for  the 
process  of  mercanization."12  We  are  now  importing  for  manufac 
turing  in  America  yearly  about  five  million  dollars  worth  of  this 
Egyptian  grown  cotton.  With  the  intelligence  of  free  labor  and  the 
improved  gins  which  were  early  introduced,  the  great  cotton  coun 
tries  of  the  world  soon  would  have  driven  Southern  slavery  from 
its  last  stronghold. 

Then,  again,  whatever  the  possibilities  which  cotton  furnished 
slavery,  these  were  limited  to  a  comparatively  small  area  of  the 
Union  territory  as  it  existed  at  the  time  when  the  anti-slavery  fires 
began  to  burn  with  such  fury  in  the  North,  or  even  considering  the 
United  States  as  she  is  to-day.  A  glance  at  the  cotton  area,  as 
shown  on  the  map  accompan3ring  our  last  census,  will  show  that  free 
territory  must  forever  have  been  in  the  ascendency.  If,  as  Brown, 
whom  we  quoted  a  few  pages  ago,  and  all  Northern  writers  agree, 
Virginia  and  the  upper  Southern  States  would  have  emancipated 
their  slaves  early  in  the  century  if  left  alone,  then  this  would  have 
reduced  the  slave  territory  to  such  an  insignificant  area,  and  this 


123Werner's  Brit.    Egypt. 

"'Twelfth  Census,  v.  IX.,  pt.  3,  p.  37. 


76  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

small  area  would  have  had  such  a  minority  in  the  nation's  voice  as 
would  have  rendered  it  entirely  harmless  during  whatever  time 
natural,  normal  progress  required  to  drive  slavery  from  American 
soil.  Whatever  agitation  cheeked  this  inevitable  end,  was  the  result 
of  fanatical  excitement  or  the  want  of  patriotic  and  statesmanlike 
foresight.  That  there  was  no  other  industries  then  or  now  which 
could  have  fostered  the  continuance  of  slavery,  the  evidence  of  so 
eminent  a  scholar  as  Mr.  Ehodes  will  be  representative  of  the  al 
most  unlimited  cumulative  evidence  I  might  adduce.  He  says, 
"Rice,  sugar,  and  cotton  were,  apparently,  the  only  products  for 
which  slave  labor  was  necessary,  and  compared  with  cotton,  sugar, 
and  rice,  were  insignificant  products.  Tobacco  and  grain  could  be 
cultivated  with  greater  economy  by  freemen."125  Hence,  when  com 
petition  had  destroyed  the  cotton  industry,  it  must  at  the  same  time 
have  destroyed  the  slavery  to  the  existence  of  which  a  profitable  pro 
duction  of  cotton  was  absolutely  necessary. 

However  much  or  little  the  true  solution  was  comprehended 
either  North  or  South,  the  fact  yet  remains  that  the  possibilities 
of  cotton  were  fully  realized  and  that  early  in  the  last  century, — at 
least  prior  to  1815.  The  cotton-gin  was  invented  in  1793,  and  be 
fore  1815  it  had  revolutionized  the  cotton  industry.  More  than 
two  nations  were  awake  to  the  possibilities  of  one  of  our  greatest 
modern  industries.  Long  after  this  time  the  South  continued  to  be 
the  strong  advocate  of  emancipation. 

The  Kentucky  abolition  society,  in  a  petition  communicated  to 
Congress  in  January,  1816,  speaking  of  Southern  conditions — and 
no  one  disputed  the  assertions — said  that  "great  numbers  of  slaves 

have  been  emancipated and  it  may  be  expected from 

the  spirit  of  benevolence  that  seems  to  be  taking  place  among  all 
classes  of  citizens  that  the  number  will  be  daily  increasing."126  A 
quarter  of  a  century  of  the  new  era  of  cotton  saw  no  dimunition  in 
Southern  emancipation  tendencies.  During  this  time  abolition  had 
grown  steadily  no  less  rapidly  in  the  South  than  in  the  North.  It 
was  as  late  as  1832  that  the  legislature  of  Virginia  came  so  near 
passing  a  gradual  emancipation  law.  As  Webster  said,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  but  that  if  interference  had  been  absent  that  State 


123Rhodes'  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  v.  I.,  p.  2H-27. 
1MAm.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.   II.,  p.  279. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  77 

would  have  carried  out  within  a  few  months  the  work  which  was  so 
nearly  finished  at  that  time.1*7  Dunn,  who  by  no  means  is  in  sym 
pathy  with  the  Southern  contention,  in  his  history  of  Indiana,  says, 
"In  1827  there  were  one  hundred  and  thirty  abolition  societies  in 
this  country,  and  only  twenty-four  of  them  were  in  the  free 
States/'12  AYe  see,  then,  that  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
the  growth  of  the  cotton  industry  moved  side  by  side  with  Southern 
emancipation  teachings  and  extensive  organized  efforts  in  that 
section  to  make  emancipation  safe  and  practical  in  the  South.  But 
long  before  1827  the  South  had  been  subjected  to  a  cross-fire.  On 
the  one  hand  she  realized  the  necessity  and  felt  the  desirability  of 
emancipating  her  slaves,  and  on  the  other  hand  she  was  attacked  by 
at  first  the  few  but  constantly  increasing  Northern  abolitionists 
with  the  most  violent  bitterness.  Very  early  it  began  to  be  dis 
covered  that  such  an  agitation  by  the  North  produced  most  disas 
trous  results  upon  the  slaves  themselves.  So  that  within  a  very 
few  months  after  the  tide  started  northward  the  South  completely 
changed  her  front;  the  agencies  that  had  long  since  begun  to  work 
in  her  midst  had  brought  the  Southern  people  to  confront  condi 
tion's  which  involved  more  than  money;  more  than  political  and 
economic  conditions.  The  South  was  forced  to  realize  that  an  agi 
tation  of  emancipation,  especially  when  that  agitation  was  accom 
panied  by  the  systematic  work  (such  as  will  be  noticed  in  exam 
ining  the  "underground  railroad"  movement)  of  assisting  slaves  to 
run  away  in  large  numbers,  made  the  slaves  a  source  of  danger  to 
be  feared  as  much  by  Southern  men  and  women  as  they  were  feared 
by  Northerners  during  the  slave  period  in  that  section.  For  in 
stance,  in  New  York,  where  in  1741  an  unfounded  fear  of  a  servile 
insurrection  caused  "fourteen  negroes  to  be  burned  at  the  stake  and 
twenty-four  hanged."15  Mr.  Seward,  once  governor  of  New  York, 
for  a  number  of  years  a  United  States  Senator  and  Secretary  of 
State  under  President  Lincoln,  tells  us  that  on  this  occasion  lawyers 
refused  to  defend  the  accused,  and  that  the  Supreme  Court  and  the 
entire  bar  assisted  in  the  prosecution ;  and  that  in  addition  to  those 
killed  "fifty  were  transported  and  sold  into  foreign  slavery."13  Or 


127Webster's  Works,  v.  5.  p.  357. 

128Hist.  of  Indiana,  p.  190. 

129Theodore  Roosevelt,  New  York,  Historic  Town  Series,  p.  101. 

130Works,  Vol.  II.,  p.  59. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

where  in  1863  "many  negroes  were  hung  or  beat  to  death  with  lin 
gering  cruelty"  on  the  mere  suspicion  of  incendiarism.131 

So  for  those  who  do  not  arbitrarily  refuse  to  regard  the  human 
nature  common  to  all  Americans,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  the 
Northern  emancipation  agitation,  carried  on  as  it  had  come  to  be 
before  1830  on  Southern  soil  and  among  the  slaves  themselves, 
tnreatened  not  alone  property  in  the  slaves,  but,  in  the  words  of 
Governor  White  in  his  message  to  the  legislature  of  Louisiana  in 
1836,  jeopardized  "our  peace,  our  fortunes,  our  lives,  and  those 
of  our  children/""  Later  in  this  monograph  I  shall  call  atten 
tion  to  the  fact  that  the  combined  efforts  of  all  classes  of  anti- 
slavery  men  at  the  Xorth  resulted  not  alone  in  the  destruction  of 
Southern  anti-slavery  sentiment,  but  that  the  stream  became  so  tur 
bid  as  it  hurried  down  the  years  from  the  northward  that  the  South 
ern  leaders  came  to  believe  that  secession  was  the  only  remedy. 

Having  seen  something  of  what  was  and  what  was  not  the  cause 
of  the  decline  of  anti-slavery  teachings  in  one  locality  of  the  Union, 
I  desire  now  to  present  what  I  submit  shows  that  at  no  time  in  our 
nation's  history  was  the  per  cent,  of  pro-slavery  advocates  increas 
ing — the  nation  considered  as  a  whole;  and,  second,  that  the  co 
operation  of  the  many  in  the  Xorth  with  the  pro-slavery  South 
erners  did  not  threaten  the  territorial  spread  of  slavery  until  it 
should  become  a  dominating  political  force  and  a  menace  to  the  na 
tion.  Incidentally,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  economic  forces  which  I 
have  mentioned  as  destined  finally  to  reach  the  cotton  industry,  were 
already  at  work  in  our  country.  The  same  economic  forces  which 
had  shaped  the  early  political  attitude  of  Xew  England  on  slave 
questions  were  steadily  driving  all  American  negro  slavery  to  an 
unprofitable  basis,  which  necessarily  meant  its  final  rooting  from 
our  soil. 

That  slavery  disappeared  from  the  older  Xorth  because  it  became 
unprofitable  cannot  now  be  seriously  questioned.  That  this  is  now 
generally  admitted,  the  testimony  of  the  following  eminent  Xorth- 
ern  scholars  will  leave  no  doubt:  F.  A.  Walker,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D., 
president  Mass.  Inst.  Tech.;181  Joel  Dorman  Steele,  Ph.  D.,  F.  G. 


131Roosevelt,  New  York,  p.  204. 

132Gayarre.  Hist,  of  Louisiana,  v.  IV.,  p.  651. 

133The  Making  of  the  Nation,  p.  209. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  79 

S.,  and  Esther  Baker  Steele,  Lit.  D.;134  Professor  Charming;135  Car 
roll  D.  Wright,  LL.  D.  (some  years  United  States  Commissioner 
of  Labor),130  and  George  Bancroft.137  Pages  might  be  filled  with 
such  eminent  names.  That  unfavorable  economic  conditions  drove 
slavery  from  the  North  is  not  disputed  by  any  one  of  recognized 
authority,  so  far  as  I  can  learn ;  but  the  fact  that  it  is  often  treated 
in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  the  force  of  this  truth  to  be  lost,  makes  it 
necessary  to  give  it  some  emphasis  here.  Let  me  content  myself  by 
quoting  the  language  of  the  eminent  historian  and  politician,  George 
Bancroft,  of  Massachusetts,  who  was  first  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
and  the  minister  to  England.  He  says  of  the  negro  that  "...  even 
the  climate  of  Virginia  was  too  chill  for  him.  His  labor,  therefore, 
increased  in  value  as  he  proceeded  south;  and  hence  the  relation 
of  master  and  slave  came  to  be  essentially  a  Southern  institu 
tion."188  And  again  he  says,  "At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century 
slavery  seemed  to  be  dying  in  America  less  because  the  consciences 
of  men  were  aroused  to  its  enormity  than  because  it  was  economi 
cally  unprofitable."  Certainly  it  is  of  no  little  interest  to  add  the 
cumulative  testimony  of  a  negro  who,  born  a  slave,  has  reached  a 
standard  of  intellectuality  unequaled  by  another  of  his  race,  and 
who  sees  the  negro's  past,  present,  and  future  with  the  comprehen 
sive  grasp  of  a  philosopher,— Booker  T.  Washington.  He  says,  "It 
was  soon  found,  however,  that  slave  labor  was  not  remunerative  in 
the  Northern  States,  and  for  that  reason  by  far  the  greater  portion 
of  the  slaves  were  held  in  the  Southern  States,  where  their  labor  in 
raising  cotton,  rice,  and  sugar-cane  was  more  productive."15 

Turning  next  to  the  newer  North,  which  was  for  years  the  north 
west,  we  find  the  same  causes  operated  to  determine  the  status  of 
the  negro. 

In  1784  the  United  States  created  what  is  generally  known  as 
the  Northwest  Territory,  and  in  1787  Congress  passed  the  famous 
Ordinance  repealing  that  of  1784.  This  was  the  first  territory  held 
in  common  after  the  Confederated  union  of  the  thirteen  original 


134Hist.  of  the  IT.  S.  (Barnes'  School  Series),  p.  172. 
135Hist.  of  the  U.  S.    (Student's),  p.  140. 
"'Industrial  Evolution  of  the  United  States,  p.  151. 
137History  of  the  U.  S.,  v.  II. 
""History  of  the  U.  S.,  v.  II.,  p.  275. 
1S9The  Future  of  the  American  Negro,  p.  6. 


80 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


States.  With  this  territory  was  inherited  its  Indian  and  negro 
slavery,  both  of  which  had  existed  under  Spanish,  French,  and 
British  dominion.  From  this  territory  were  carved  the  present 
States  of  Michigan,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Wisconsin,  and  part  of 
Minnesota.  Its  government  was  not  organized  until  1788.  Arthur 
St.  Clair,  of  Scottish  birth  and  Boston  residence,  was  its  first  gov 
ernor.  Jurisdiction  was  not  extended  to  some  of  the  French  settle 
ments  until  1790."°  July  4,  1800,  the  Northwest  Territory  had 
what  is  now  Ohio  and  part  of  Michigan  severed  from  it.  The  east 
ern  part  continued  to  be  called  the  Northwest  Territory  until  it 
became  the  State  of  Ohio  in  1803.  The  western  part,  after  the  di 
vision,  was  called  the  Indiana  Territory,  and  William  Henry  Harri 
son,  of  Tippecanoe  fame,  afterward  elected  President  of  the  United 
States  by  the  Whigs,  was  made  the  first  governor.  St.  Clair  was 
continued  governor  of  that  section  which  is  now  the  State  of  Ohio, 
until  it  became  a  State  with  not  so  large  an  area  as  that  covered 
during  its  territorial  existence.  The  present  State  of  Ohio  in  1803 
was  admitted  to  the  full  rights  of  statehood.  In  1809  the  Indiana 
Territory  had  severed  from  it  that  portion  to  the  west  of  the 
Wabash  river, — after  separation  called  the  Territory  of  Illinois, — 
embracing  all  her  lands  to  the  northwest  except  Michigan,  north  of 
the  present  State  of  Indiana. 

The  Ordinance  of  1787,  re-creating  the  Northwest  Territory, 
provided  that  it  should  be  divided  and  erected  into  States  when 
certain  portions  had  a  population  of  sixty  thousand  free  inhabi 
tants,  or  sooner,  if  Congress  should  think  best.  It  was  provided 
that  these  new  States  were  to  be  admitted  to  their  respective  posi 
tions  in  the  new  Confederated  union  "on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever."141 

Mr.  Eoosevelt,  speaking  of  this  Ordinance,  says  that  "it  stipu 
lated  that  slavery  should  never  exist  in  the  States  formed"  from  the 
Northwest.142  President  Woodrow  Wilson,  Ph.  D.,  Litt.  D.,  LL.  D., 
of  Princeton  University,  in  his  recent  masterly  history,  speaking 
of  the  formation  of  States  fro-m  the  Northwest  Territory,  says,  "The 
Ordinance  was  still  the  law  of  the  land.  It  forbade  slavery  for- 


140Dunn,  Hist,  of  Indiana,  p.  261. 

141Hinsdale,  Old  Northwest,  p.  264  ;  Sparks,  Expansion  of  the  American  People, 
p.  84-5  ;  United  States  Charters  and  Constitutions,  249-432. 
""Winning  of  the  West,  v.  III.,  p.  234. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.         «        81 

ever."14  With  this  opinion,  which  is  held  generally,  I  do  not  agree; 
and  I  shall  submit  the  history  of  local  slave  legislation  in  the 
Northwest,  and  the  attitude  of  Congress  toward  that  legislation  in 
support  of  my  demurrer. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  present  Constitution  of  the  Union 
had  no  existence  when  the  Ordinance  was  passed.  Since  each  new 
State  was  to  be  equal  "in  all  respects  whatsoever"  to  the  older  ones ; 
and  since  the  Confederation  preserved  to  each  old  State  its  sover 
eignty,  when  the  new  States  emerged  from  Territories,  had  there 
never  been  a  change  in  the  Confederation  they  would  have  passed 
into  sovereign  Statehood;  hence,  the  management  of  internal  in 
stitutions  not  surrendered  to  Congress  would  have  followed.  Since 
legal  slavery  in  any  State  was  not  repugnant  to  the  Confederation 
(or  to  the  Constitution  which  supplanted  it),  the  slave  question 
must  have  fallen  to  the  Northwest  States,  or  to  the  people  of  the 
several  Territories  which  became  States,  for  their  separate  and  re 
spective  final  settlement. 

In  1784  Mr.  Jefferson  offered  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  the 
new  northwest,  which  became  the  law,  one  article  relating  to  slavery 
being  the  only  exception  to  the  adoption  of  the  original  draft.  The 
language  in  this  article  and  the  language  in  the  Ordinance,  which 
became  the  law  in  1787,  are  strikingly  similar.  The  ordinance  of 
1784  attempted  to  apply  the  slave  regulation  to  the  period  of  State 
hood.  Congress  refused  to  pass  this  provision.  The  sixth  article 
of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  did  become  the  law,  read  side  by 
side  with  that  of  1784,  which  Congress  refused  to  accept,  helps  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  one  which  became  the  law  was  intended  only 
for  the  Territorial  period. 


143  A  Hist.  Am.  People  (Harpers,  1902),  v.  3,  p.  250. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

SIXTH  ART.    (the  only  slavery  pro- 

ORD.   (SLAV.  PROV.)    1784.  vision). 

"That  after  the  year  1800,  of  the  ORDINANCE  1787. 

Christian  era,  there  shall  be  neither  "There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor 

slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in       involuntary  servitude  in  said  terri- 

any   of   the   said    States,    otherwise       tory,  otherwise  than  in  the  punish- 

than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes,       ment   of  crimes   whereof   the  party 

whereof   the  party  shall   have  been       shall  have  been  duly  convicted;  Pro- 

duly    convicted    to    have    been    per-       vided   always,   that   any   person   es- 

sonally  guilty."1"  caping   into   the  same   from   whom 

labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed," 
shall  be  returned.145 

This  wording  of  the  provision  which  failed  to  become  a  law,  com 
pared  with  the  one  that  was  enacted,  the  latter  construed  in  the 
light  of  the  several  local  -  Territorial  and  then  State  slave  regula 
tions  which  followed,  resting  upon  the  provision  in  the  final  Ordi 
nance  that  the  new  States  were  to  be  on  "an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States  in  all  respects  whatsoever, "—and  this  construed  with 
reference  to  its  purpose,  careful  attention  being  given  to  the  word 
ing  of  the  Ordinance  throughout —all  help  us  to  see  that  the  slave 
provision  or  the  much  praised  "forever  sixth  compact,"  unquestion 
ably  was  applicable  no  longer,  at  least,  than  the  Northwest  or  any 
part  thereof  remained  a  Territory. 

In  fact,  under  the  Constitution  citizens  of  the  Territories  and 
Congress  went  further.  Both  the  local  organizations  and  the  na 
tional  government  treated  the  slavery  provision  as  binding  merely 
until  the  local  Territorial  legislative  authority  assumed  general  leg 
islation  and  thereafter  only  so  long  as  the  Territorial  legisla 
tive  power  failed  to  take  legislative  action  touching  domestic 
slavery.  Upon  no  other  interpretation  can  we  account  for  the 
action  taken  by  the  various'  local  Territorial  bodies,  and  the 
Congressional  ratification  of  their  laws,  to  both  of  which  I  shall 
presently  call  attention.  The  only  legal  effect  of  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  then,  was  to  give  the  non-slave-holding  class  the  advantage 
in  unsettled  sections  in  the  early  settlement  of  the  country — an  ad 
vantage  which  they  utilized.  Having  once  the  advantage,  it  was 

144Randall's  Life'of  Jefferson,  v.  1,  p.  307. 

145Smith,  The  St.  Clair  Papers,  v.  I.,  p.  133  ;  Wilson,  A  Hist,  of  the  Am.  Peo 
ple,  v.  3,  p.  309. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  83 

plain  that  advantage  easily  could  be  held  when  the  question  came  to 
be  settled  by  local  authorities. 

What  is  it,  then,  in  the  Ordinance  upon  which  historians  base 
their  claims  that  slavery  was  forever  denied  to  both  the  Territories 
and  States  formed  from  the  original  Northwest  ?  It  is  this : 

On  reading  the  entire  Ordinance,  it  will  be  observed  that  it  is 
divided  into  fourteen  sections,  and  these  are  followed  by  six  articles. 
The  sections,  after  the  declaration  that  the  Ordinance  is  for  the 
'•government  of  the  Territory/''  begins  by  setting  forth  that  it  is  for 
the  purposes  of  temporary  government;  then  making  some  provi 
sions  for  the  descent  of  property,  necessitated  because  of  the  recent 
rules  of  the  Spanish,  French,  and  later  British  laws,  created  the  of 
ficials,  and  set  out  their  duties;  then  it  declares  that  the  governor 
and  judges  shall  adopt,  publish,  and  report  to  Congress  "such  laws 
of  the  original  States,  both  civil  and  criminal,  as  may  be  necessary," 
until  the  organization  of  the  general  assembly,  which  laws  were  to 
be  "in  full  force"  "unless  disapproved  by  Congress"  or  altered  by  the 
legislature  after  it  assumed  the  legislative  duties.  Then  the  func 
tions  of  the  legislators  were  declared  to  be  to  "make  laws  in  all 
cases,  for  the  good  government  of  the  district,  not  repugnant  to  the 
principles  and  articles  in  this  ordinance  established  and  declared." 
And  then  section  13  introduces  the  Articles  by  declaring,  "For  ex 
tending  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
...  to  provide  for  the  establishment  of  States  and  permanent  gov 
ernment  therein,  and  for  their  admission  for  a  share  in  the  Federal 
councils  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  at  as  early  a 
period  as  may  be  consistent  with  the  general  interest : 

"Section  14.  It  is  hereby  ordained  and  declared,  by  the  authority 
aforesaid,  that  the  following  articles  shall  be  considered  as  ar 
ticles  of  compact  between  the  original  States  and  the  people  and 
States  in  the  said  territory,  and  forever  remain  unalterable  unless, 
by  common  consent,  to-wit:  ..."  Then  follow  the  six  articles,  the 
sixth  and  last,  the  slavery  provision,  the  one  I  gave  in  full  above. 
"Forever  remain  unalterable"— there  is  the  historian's  usual  shib 
boleth.  But— have  these  words  been  treated  in  their  literal  meaning  ? 
Not  by  very  much.  With  the  advent  of  our  present  Constitution, 
which  supplanted  the  Confederation  under  which  this  Ordinance 
was  passed,  an  interpretation  has  been  given  the  entire  document 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

more  in  conformity  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Constitution.  That  Con 
gress  meant  to  construe  and  enforce  the  Ordinance  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Constitution  is  evident,  in  the  first  place,  from 
the  act  passed  at  the  first  session  of  the  first  Congress  (17S<))  under 
the  Constitution,  which  was  passed  "so  as  to  adapt"  the  Ordinance 
"to  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States."146 

Section  4  of  the  Ordinance  declares  that  the  "said  territory,  and 
the  States  which  may  be  formed  therein,  shall  forever  remain  a  part 
of  this  confederacy  of  the  United  States  of  America,  subject  to  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  and  to  such  alterations  therein  as  shall 
be  constitutionally  made."147  This  mentions  not  the  territory  only, 
but  the  States  to  be  formed  therein,  and  passes  such  States  under 
our  Constitution  as  the  "constitutional"  successor  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation;  so  that  whatever  applies  to  all  other  States  under 
the  Constitution,  would  apply  to  these  new  States.  This  article  even 
goes  further;  it  makes  these  States  subject  to  all  acts  and  ordi 
nances  of  the  United  States  "in  Congress  assembled,"  which  are 
conformable  "to  whatever  alterations  are  to  the  Confederation 
made."  So  that  no  Congressional  provision  could  have  been  ap 
plied  to  one  of  these  States  which  the  Constitution  would  have  for 
bidden  to  be  applied  to  any  State  in  the  Union.  Article  5  provides 
unequivocally  for  not  more  than  five  States,  which  provision  has 
been  utterly  disregarded.  It  sets  out  the  boundaries  for  these ;  this 
provision  has  been  broken,  and  that  without  the  consent  of  the 
States  concerned."8  It  provides  that  the  new  States  "shall  be  ad 
mitted  [each]  by  its  delegates  into  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects 
whatsoever,  and  shall  be  at  liberty  to  form  a  permanent  constitu 
tion  and  State  government," — which  shows  that  the  government  in 
the  Ordinance  itself  had  nothing  whatever  of  permanency  except 
that  it  meant  to  get  the  new  States  into  the  brotherhood  of  States 
just  as  if  they  had  been  of  the  original  number — "share  and  share 
alike."  In  view  of  this  fact,  and  the  further  fact  that  the  word 
"States"  is  coupled  with  every  extra-territorial  compact  through 
out  the  articles,  and  is  not  used  in  the  sixth  and  last,  it  is  clear,  to 


14flU.   S.   Ch.  and  Cons.,   433. 
147TJ.  S.  Ch.  and  Cons.,  431. 
148Burnet,  Notes,  350. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  85 

my  mind,  that  even  if  there  had  been  no  change  in  the  Confedera 
tion,  the  slavery  provision  would  not  have  extended  to  the  period 
of  Statehood.  But  since  the  Constitution  had  not  altered  State 
jurisdiction  over  slavery,  the  new  States  were  entitled  to  a  like  ju 
risdiction.  After  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  people  gen 
erally  took  this  view  of  the  situation,  and  evidently  they  then  felt 
that  Territorial  jurisdiction  preceded  State  control;  and  as  I  shall 
show  later,  Congress  actually  recognized  the  validity  of  slave  laws 
made  by  Territorial  law-making  powers.  The  principles  of  the 
Constitution  prevailed.  The  Ordinance  declared  that  a  freehold 
in  fifty  acres  of  land  "and  two  year's'  residence  in  the  district,  shall 
be  necessary  to  qualify"  a  man  to  vote — no  distinction  as  to  color. 
By  the  Constitution  of  Illinois  in  1818,  section  27,  it  is  declared 
that  "in  all  elections  white  male  inhabitants"  only  could  vote.149 
Yet  on  December  3,  1818,  Congress  declared  this  in  conformity 
with  the  Ordinance,150  which  meant  the  Ordinance  as  interpreted 
under  the  Constitution. 

The  wording  of  the  first  laws  of  Congress  touching  the  slaves  in 
any  part  of  the  country,  be  it  territorial  or  State,  is  of  importance 
in  determining  how  Congress  meant  to  interpret  and  construe  the 
sixth  or  prohibitive  article  in  the  Ordinance.  February,  1792,  the 
first  national  fugitive  slave  law  passed  the  Senate  entirely  without 
opposition,  and  in  the  House  it  had  but  seven  in  the  negative.  Its 
first  provision  was,  "That  when  a  person  held  to  labor  in  any  of 
the  United  States,  or  in  either  of  the  territories  on  the  northwest 
or  south  of  the  river  Ohio,  under  the  laws  thereof,  shall  escape  into 
any  other  of  the  said  states  or  territories,  the  person  to  whom  such 
service  or  labor  may  be  due,  his  agent  or  attorney,  is  hereby  em- 
powered  to  seize"  and  carry  before  an  officer  and  have  such  fugitive 
returned.  "Under  the  laws  thereof,"  that  is,  under  the  local  laws 
of  either  the  Territory  covered  by  the  ordinance,  or  those  of 
the  Territory  lying  to  the  south  of  the  Ohio  river.  Most  cer 
tainly  here  is  a  plain  statement  that  under  the  Constitution  the 
Territories— "either  of  them"— might  enact  measures,  so  that 
"under  the  laws  thereof"  slaves  might  be  legally  held.  Hence, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  we  have  both  the  words  and  the  acts 


"9U.  S.  Ch.  and  Cons.,  442. 
150Ib.?  449. 


80 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


of  Congress,  in  conjunction  with  the  local  legislatures,  givina  to 
the  prohibitive  clause  of  the  Ordinance  a  construction  in  confor 
mity  with  full  local  control  of  slavery. 

Oregon's  history  furnishes  some  important  evidence  in  support 
of  my  contention  that  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
slavery  regulations  were  always  left  to  the  people  of  a  Territory, 
and  that  afterward  the  same  rule  followed  its  people  into  State 
hood.  It  is  also  a  valuable  witness,  in  support  of  my  contention, 
that  the  Ordinance  of  1787;  as  construed  under  the  Constitution, 
did  not  forbid  slavery  jurisdiction  to  local  Territorial  authority  or 
to  their  successors  under  State  jurisdiction. 

August  14,  1848,  the  President  approved  the  act  of  Congress  es 
tablishing  the  Territorial  government  of  Oregon.  This  act  at 
tempted  to  apply  the  Ordinance  of  178?  to  the  Oregon  Territory. 
Section  14  declares : 

"The  inhabitants  of  the  said  Territory  shall  be  entitled  to  enjoy 
all  and  singular  the  rights,  privileges,  and  advantages  granted  and 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  northwest  of  the  river 
Ohio,  by  the  articles  of  compact  contained  in  the  ordinance  for  the 
government  of  the  said  territory,  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  July, 
seventeen  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  and  shall  be  subject  to  all 
the  conditions,  and  restrictions  and  prohibitions,  in  said  articles 
of  compact  imposed  upon  the  people  of  the  said  territory." 

Hence,  whatever  relation  the  slavery  provision  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  bore  to  the  Territories  and  States  of  the  Old  Northwest,  ap 
pertained  to  Oregon. 

"Squatter  sovereignty,"  the  right  of  the  people  in  any  political 
unit  to  determine  their  own  local  questions,  one  of  which  is  domes 
tic  slavery,  is  nowhere  more  strongly  seen  than  in  Oregon's  history. 
July  5,  1843,  the  people  of  Oregon  Territory,  "for  mutual  protec 
tion  and  to  secure  peace  and  prosperity  among"  themselves,  adopted 
a  code  of  organic  laws  "until  such  time  as  the  United  States  of 
America  extend  jurisdiction  over  us,"  in  the  fifth  article  of  which 
they  declared  that  "there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  such  territory."151  In  1844  the  legislature  of  the  pro 
visional  government  again  assumed  jurisdiction  of  slavery,  and  also 

151W.  H.  Gray,  A  Hist,  of  Oregon   (Portland  and   San  Francisco,  1870),  353-4; 
Bancroft's  Works,  v.  29,  306. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  87 

passed  anti-negro  laws  of  extreme  severity,  designed  to  rid  the  coun 
try  of  free  negroes,  or  mulattoes,  "and  to  prevent  the  coming  of 
others."152    Section  14  of  the  Congressional  act  of  August  14,  1848, 
also  further  declared  that  "the  existing  laws  now  enforced  in  the 
Territory  of  Oregon,  under  the  authority  of  the  provisional  govern 
ment  established  by  the  people  thereof,  shall  continue  to  be  valid 
and  operative  therein,  so  far  as  the  same  be  not  incompatible  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  principles  and  pro 
visions  of  this  act,  subject,  nevertheless,  to  be  altered,  modified,  or 
repealed   by    the   legislative   assembly    of   the   said    Territory    of 
Oregon/'15     This  unquestionably  recognized  as  valid  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  by  the  local,  Territorial,  authority.    Just  as  had  all  the 
local  Territorial  legislative  bodies  in  the  Old  Northwest,  so  the  peo 
ple  of  Oregon  understood  that  the  concluding  words  of  this  same 
section  declared  that  the  Territory,  irrespective  of  Congressional 
interference,  might  alter,  modify,  or  repeal  this  local  prohibition  of 
slavery  and  establish  it  as  a  legal  institution.    This  is  forcibly  mani 
fest  from  the  fact  that  the  constitutional  convention  of  1857,  in 
article  8,  section  4,  of  the  constitution,  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people  the  question  of  slavery,  and  provided  that  if  a  "majority  of 
all  the  votes  given  for  and  against  slavery  shall   be   given  for 
slavery/'  the  constitution  should  declare  that,  "Persons  lawfully 
held  as  slaves  in  any  State,  Territory,  or  district  of  the  United 
States  under  the  laws  thereof,  may  be  brought  into  this  State,  and 
such  slaves  and  their  descendants  may  be  held  as  slaves  within  this 
State,  and  shall  not  be  emancipated  without  the  consent  of  their 
owners."154 

Thus  Oregon  provided  that  the  majority  of  her  people,  in  their 
local  capacity,  and  acting  under  the  sixth  article  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  should  decide  her  questions  of  legal  servitude.  No  body 
of  people  in  the  nation  questioned  the  legality  of  this  provision. 
The  constitutional  convention  which  framed  this  provision  num 
bered  among  its  members  some  of  the  most  able  men  who  ever  sat 
in  a  convention ;  many  of  them  were  lawyers  of  ability  and  standing 
from  older  States.  One  of  them,  Judge  George  H.  Williams,  was; 


""Bancroft's  Works,  v.  29,  438. 
"•U.  S.  Ch.  and  Cons.,  1489. 
1MU.  S.  Ch.  and  Cons.,  1506. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

afterward  attorney-general  of  the  United  States  under  President 
Grant;  and  as  I  write  his  voice  yet  echoes  in  praise  of  his  co-laborers 
in  that  convention.  Another,  Judge  McBride,  is  yet  upon  the  bench 
in  the  State  of  Washington.  No  one  questioned  the  legality  of  the 
submission  of  this  question  to  the  vote  of  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tory,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  if  on  vote  the  majority  had  favored 
slavery,  it  would  have  been  incorporated  in  the  Oregon  fundamental 
State  law,  thus  giving  another  indubitable  proof  that  everywhere 
and  all  the  time  the  Ordinance  of  the  thirteenth  of  Juty,  seventeen 
hundred  and  eighty-seven,  as  interpreted  and  applied  under  the 
Constitution,  left  slavery  subject  to  the  will  of  the  local  majority, 
untrammeled  by  Congressional  interference. 

It  now  remains  to  go  back  and  see  the  local  slavery  history  of  the 
Northwest,155  The  Ordinance  of  1787  did  not  touch  the  existing 
slavery.  The  slaves  already  held  by  the  French,  British,  and  other 
settlers  in  the  Northwest  Territory,  were  secured  as  property  to  the 
masters  either  under  authority  of  Congress  in  its  construction  of 
the  Ordinance,  Jay's  Treaty,  or  the  treaty  with  France,  all  of  which 
guaranteed  to  "settlers  their  property  of  every  kind  and  protection 
therein,  which  applied  to  slaves  as  well  as  other  property,"  so  Mr. 
Hinsdale  correctly  says.158  The  slaves,  most  of  whom  were  negroes, 
the  remainder  being  enslaved  Indians,  thus  secured  to  their  owners, 
had  been  early  introduced  into  this  region  by  the  French,  who  had 
settled  in  various  places  up  and  down  the  Mississippi  valley  from 
Canada  to  New  Orleans.  Negro  slavery  had  existed  in  Canada  since 
1688,  when  it  was  introduced  from  the  West  Indies  by  government 
officials  by  consent  of  the  King  of  France.  Many  of  the  settlers,  es 
pecially  those  at  Detroit  in  what  is  now  Michigan,  owned  slaves 
from  a  remote  Indian  tribe,  the  Pawnees.157  "The  Pawnee  slaves 
were  captives  taken  in  war  and  sold  at  low  prices"  to  these  first  set 
tlers  in  that  part  of  Canada  now  belonging  to  the  United  States.151 
The  French  authorities  thought  that  the  negro  in  Canada  would 
be  a  remedv  for  "the  scarcitv  and  dearness  of  labor"  :159  but  climate 


155An  interesting  account  of  the  condition  of  the  early  Northwest  slaves  is 
given  by  John  W.  Monette,  Hist.  Miss.  Valley,  v.  1,  p.  187. 

™>The  Old  Northwest,  339  ;  Dunn.  Indiana,  252-3  ;  Justin  Winsor,  The  West 
ern  Movement.  288. 

157Burnet,  Notes  (Cincinnati,  1847).  282  n.  ct  scq. 

158Parkman,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  454-5. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  89 

•soon  robbed  the  slave-owner  of  all  profit  in  his  slaves;160  and  so  the 
parliament  of  Upper  Canada,  in  1793,  provided  for  gradual  eman 
cipation.  But  in  the  country  to  the  south  of  Canada  slavery,  at 
the  time  that  part  of  the  country  passed  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States,  was  not  only  then  yet  legal,  but  was  regarded  as 
necessary.  The  French  slave-holding  element  of  this  Northwest 
country  was  comparatively  numerous.  Xo  representative  of  the 
new  people  was  present  when  the  Congress  of  the  thirteen  States 
undertook  to  formulate  a  government  for  them.  The  wishes  of  this 
new  citizenship  were  neither  known  nor  asked.  The  temporary  gov 
ernment  the  Congress  gave  the  people,  so  they  were  correctly  as 
sured,  did  not  touch  existing  slave  property,  but  when  it  was  realized 
that  under  the  law  as  it  then  was,  children  yet  to  be  born  of  slave  pa 
rents  would  be  free,  these  French  citizens  began  to  feel  that  they 
had  been  deprived  of  the  power  to  hold  property  which  was  the 
natural  increase  of  legal  ownership,  and  that  without  represen 
tation,  consent,  or  compensation.  This  feeling  led  to  the  first  pe 
tition  with  reference  to  slavery  which  went  to  Congress  from  the 
Northwest  Territory.  This  prayer  was  dated  at  the  French  town 
of  Kaskaskia,,  in  what  is  now  the  State  of  Illinois,  January  12,  1796. 
It  stated  that  the  Ordinance  had  destroyed  vested  rights  without  the 
consent  of  the  governed,  and,  justifying  its  request  upon  this  and 
the  further  ground  that  the  scarcity  of  labor  made  slavery  necessary, 
the  petition  prayed  the  removal  of  all  restrictions.  It  was  signed  by 
John  Edgar,  born  in  Ireland;  William  Morrison,  of  New  England; 
William  St.  Clair,  cousin  of  the  governor  of  the  Territory  from 
Scotland,  by  way  of  Massachusetts,  and  John  Du  Moulin,  a  Swiss.181 
They  professed  to  act  for  two  counties  in  the  Territory,  the  greater 
majority  of  the  citizens  in  which  were  French.  Dunn  says,  "It  is 
unquestionable  that  what  they  asked  was  desired  by  the  people  of 
those  counties/'  Governor  St.  Clair,  formerly  of  Massachusetts, 
forwarded  the  petition  to  Congress.102 

May  12,  1796,  an  adverse  report  was  made  by  the  Congressional 
committee  to  whom  the  petition  had  been  referred,  and  thus  the 
matter  rested  until  1799.  In  her  deed  to  so  much  of  the  territory 


160Dunn,  Indiana,  257. 
161Dunn,  Indiana,  287. 


182Annals  4th  Congress,   1  sess.,  1171  ;  Am.   State  Papers  :  Public  Lands,  v.  I., 


90  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

north  of  the  Ohio  as  Virginia  formerly  claimed,  she  reserved  a 
considerable  tract  of  land  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Miami  river, 
\vhich  land  she  offered  to  those  of  her  sons  who  had  participated  in 
and  survived  the  Revolutionary  War.  August  10,  1790,  Congress  had 
granted  these  Virginians  their  lands  and  designated  one  tract  north 
of  the  Ohio.133  In  this  year  of  1790,  on  February  4th,  the  first  legis 
lature  of  the  Northwest  Territory  convened.  Before  this  body  these 
Southern  soldiers  who  were  entitled  to  the  bounty  lands  presented 
two  petitions  praying  the  Territorial  legislature  to  enact  some  law 
by  which  those  of  them  who  held  slaves  might  carry  them  upon  their 
new  lands.  The  action  of  this  legislative  body  with  reference  to 
these  petitions  shows  (1)  the  legislature  did  not  doubt  its  right  to 
legislate  so  as  to  annul  the  prohibitive  provision  of  the  Ordinance ; 
(2)  this  body  had  regard  to  the  economic  interests  of  their  constitu 
ency  in  determining  their  actions;  (3)  when  they  thought  slavery 
would  retard  immigration,  they  fell  behind  the  Ordinance  simply 
because  so  long  as  they  failed  or  refused  to  act,  the  Ordinance  proved 
prohibitive  against  the  introduction  of  new  slaves.  Several  members 
of  this  legislature  were  Southern, — Virginia  alone  having  furnished 
seven.  Some  of  them  were  then  yet  slaveholders  ;164  all  of  them  were 
"intelligent,  substantial  men"  ;105  some  of  them  were  graduat-es  of  the 
best  schools  then  in  America, ;  and  they  were  not  "the  mountaineers, 
the  men  of  the  foothills,  and  uplands  who  lived  in  what  were  called 
the  backwater  counties,"  as  we  might  be  led  to  believe  from  what 
Mr.  Roosevelt  says  in  speaking  generally  of  the  Southern  immigra 
tion  of  the  Northwest  States.168  But  "a  majority  of  the  members  of 
this  legislature"  were  Northern  men.187  When  the  first  petition 
from  the  Virginia  ex-soldiers  came  before  them,  that  body  unani 
mously  declined  to  entertain  the  prayer.  They  said  the  prayer  of 
the  petition  was  incompatible  with  the  Ordinance.168  This  alone 
rather  looks  as  though  they  regarded  the  Ordinance  as  at  least  un 
changeable  by  a  Territorial  legislature.  But  the  fact  is,  as  I  shall 
show  more  fully  hereafter,  this  assembly  almost  entirely  repre- 


183Annals  of  Congress.   1   Cong.,   v.   2,   2300;   Pub.   Laws  of  the  U.    S.    (Little. 
Brown  &  Co.,  '55).  598. 
164Dunn,  Indiana,  290. 
165Burnet,  Notes,  289. 
166Thos.  H.  Benton,  2,  3. 
167Dunn.  Indiana,  289. 
168St.  Clair  Papers,  v.  2,  448,  n. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  91 

sented  the  Ohio  section,  and  it  became  a  question  as  to  whether 
slavery  would  not  keep  more  settlers  away  from  than  it  would  bring 
into  the  Territory.     So  on  considering  the  first  petition  they  con 
cluded  that  "whatever  its  immediate  advantages  it  would  ultimately 
retard  the  settlement  and  check  the  prosperity  of  the  Territory,  by 
making  labor  less  reputable,  and  creating  feelings  and  habits  un 
friendly  to  the  simplicity  and  industry  they  desired  to  encourage 
and  perpetuate."1'      But  when  in  November  of  the  same  year  the 
second  petition  came  from  the  same  men,  this  time  asking  for 
slavery  under  reasonable  restrictions,  and  doubtless  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  a  large  majority  of  the  French  west  of  the  Miami  at  this 
time  "favored  the  introduction  of  slaves,"170  and  also  a  large  New 
England  element  in  Ross  county;171  this  legislature,  with  its  North 
ern  majority,  found  in  the  increase  of  immigration  thus  seeking  to 
enter  their  borders,  such  a  consideration  as  induced  them  to  change 
their  first  position.     They  showed  plainly  that  they  did  not  regard 
the    prohibition    of    the    Ordinance    as    forever    insurmountable. 
They  appointed  a  committee  and  directed  them— not  to  inquire  into 
the  advisability  of  slavery— but  to  prepare  a  bill  "declaring  the  ad 
mission  of  persons  of  color  by  indenture"— which  meant  nothing 
less  than  the  most  complete  servitude.     This  was  done  late  in  the 
session,  and  the  committee  did  not  get  this  proposed  bill  before  the 
assembly  before  adjournment;  yet,  as  Dunn  remarks,  "the  appoint 
ment  of  this  committee  indicates  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  the 
legislature  to  permit  the  introduction  of  negroes  in  a  servile  condi 
tion  until  some  other  consideration  intervened."172 

This  brings  us  to  the  first  division  of  the  Territory.  It  will  be 
necessary  to  follow  the  action  of  each  division  after  it  became  dis 
tinct  from  the  mother  territory. 

Leaving  for  the  present  the  Ohio  part,  which  retained  the  name 
of  Northwest  Territory  until  it  became  a  State,  let  us  follow  the 
section  to  the  west,  after  the  division,  called  the  Indiana  Territory. 

The  severance  of  the  Ohio  section  left  the  French  largely  in  the 
majority  in  the  Indiana  Territory.  Very  soon  after  the  Territorial 
division  this  element  again  petitioned  Congress  praying  for  the  re- 


199Burnet,  Notes,  307. 

170Dunn.  Indiana,  291. 

mSt.  Clair  Papers,  v.  2.  588  :  Dunn,  Indiana.  292. 

172Indiana,  293. 


V2  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

moval  of  the  prohibition  against  bringing  new  slaves  to  their  coun 
try,  and  that  the  children  born  in  the  Territory  of  such  slaves  should 
serve  for  a  term  of  years  before  attaining  their  freedom.  "This  pe 
tition  had  270  signers,  chiefly  French.  Of  the  more  prominent 
English  and  American  signers  the  majority  were  Northern  Feder 
alists."17  It  was  presented  to  the  Senate  only,  January  23,  1807,  was 
immediately  tabled,  and  received  no  further  notice. 

This  failure  caused  the  petitioners  to  call  upon  Harrison,  of  Vir 
ginia,  their  governor,  just  as  they  had  in  the  first  instance  pe 
titioned  Congress  through  St.  Clair,  of  Massachusetts,  to  seek  re 
dress  for  them.  Harrison  called  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
several  sections  of  his  Territory.  When  they  met  at  Vincennes  in 
December,  1802,  it  was  found  that  not  all  of  them  favored  the  in 
denture  of  new  slaves,174  but  a  majority  of  them  did.  The  opposi 
tion  came  from  those  delegates  who  were  Southern  men.  Like 
their  associates,  they  "ranked  among  the  most  intelligent  and  pub 
lic-spirited  men  in  the  Territory."17  Cooley  says  the  people  of  In 
diana  Territory  invited  the  early  attention  of  Governor  Harrison 
to  their  "inability  under  the  Ordinance  to  acquire  and  hold  slaves," 
and  then  adds:  "many  of  them  had  come  from  the  slave-holding 
States  and  were  accustomed  to  slave  labor;  and  it  seemed  to  them 
a  hardship  that  they  should  be  deprived  of  it."17  This  is  liable  to 
make  a  wrong  impression ;  the  Southern  emigration  generally  were 
less  behind  this  convention  than  the  Northern,  and  the  French  ele 
ment  more  than  either.  In  the  convention  itself  the  New  England 
and  foreign  born  delegates  were  in  the  majority,  while  those  South 
ern  delegates  who  favored  slavery  were  about,  if  not  entirely,  nega 
tived  by  the  anti-slavery  Southern  delegates.  This  left  the  South 
ern  influence  of  the  convention  practically  a  nullity.  Among  their 
various  requests  in  the  petition  which  the  majority  prepared,  the  one 
which  concerns  us  here  is  that  in  which  they  asked  that  the  slave 
prohibition  contained  in  the  Ordinance  "may  be  suspended  for  the 
Term  of  Ten  Years  and  then  be  again  in  force."177  What  were  the 
grounds  assigned  for  this  request?  They  set  out  that  the  Ordi- 


"3Dunn,  Indiana,  298-9. 

174Dunn,  Indiana,  304. 

"5Ib.,  303. 

176Hist.  of  Mich.,  134. 

177Dunn,  Indiana,  306  ;  Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  1,  485. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  93 

/ 

nance  had  driven  numerous  citizens  to  the  Spanish  side  of  the  Mis 
sissippi,— a  movement  which  had  been  greatly  augmented  by  the 
meddlesomeness  of  an  unscrupulous  man  from  New  England.17' 
The  petition  was  forwarded  to  Congress  in  a  formal  letter  by  Gov 
ernor  Harrison.  February  8,  1803,  the  House  referred  it  to  John 
Randolph,  of  Virginia;  Griswald,  of  Connecticut;  R.  Williams,  of 
North  Carolina;  Morris,  of  Vermont,  and  Hoge,  of  Pennsylvania. 
March  2d  this  committee  reported  adversely,  assigning  as  their  rea 
sons  (1)  that  slave  labor  was  not  needed  in  the  new  Territory; 
(2)  "that  this  labor,  demonstrably  the  dearest  of  any,  can  only  be 
employed  in  the  cultivation  of  products  ...  not  known  to  that 
quarter  of  the  United  States";  (3)  the  temporary  privation  of  labor 
would  find  ample  remuneration  at  no  very  distant  day.179  It  is  im 
portant  to  observe  that  this  Congressional  committee  had  a  North 
ern  majority,  and  that  it  assigned  the  economic  objection  that  slave 
labor  was  not  profitable  on  Northern  soil  as  their  reason  for  not 
recommending  that  it  go  there.  It  is  well  to  remember,  too,  that 
in  the  new  Territory  Northern  laborers  had  almost  a  monopoly  of 
the  labor  market,  and  were  unwilling,  as  well  as  the  non-slave-hold- 
ing, laborers  who  went  from  the  South,  to  come  in  competition  with 
slave  labor.  Between  Congressmen  and  petitioners  it  was  a  ques 
tion  of  expediency.180  The  existing  politics  of  the  Territory  were 
largely  Federalist;  the  North  being  the  stronghold  of  the  Federal 
party,  it  was  not  to  the  Federal  interest  to  hold  out  inducements 
for  Southern  men,  who  were  usually  non-Federalists,  to  move  to  the 
Territory.  The  report  was  read  only  a  day  prior  to  the  adjourn 
ment  of  Congress,  and  so  no  vote  was  reached. 

December  15,  1803,  this  petition  was  referred  to  a  new  committee, 
all  of  whom  were  from  the  South.  They  reported  advising  the  sus 
pension  of  the  prohibitive  clause  for  ten  years,  and  that  it  be  made 
legal  to  introduce  slaves  "born  within  the  United  States/'  provided 
the  States  from  which  they  were  removed  "did  not  permit  the  intro 
duction  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries."  They  recommended  that 
the  descendants  of  all  such  slaves  should  become  free, — males  at  the 
age  of  twenty-five,  females  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.  It  was  alleged 

178St.  Clair  Papers;  Dunn,  Indiana,   305. 

1TODunn,  Indiana,  308 :  Hinsdale,  Old  Northwest,  342 ;  Am.  State  Papers : 
Public  Lands,  v.  1,  146. 

180Dillon,  Hist.  Indiana,  410-14. 


94  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

t       •  : 

that  such  a  measure  would  relieve  the  labor  conditions  which  at  that 
time  were  embarrassing  to  many  settlers ;  it  would  have  established 
gradual  emancipation  for  the  descendants  of  many  Southern  slaves. 
So  far  as  its  legal  effect  was  concerned,  it  would  not  have  made  a  sin 
gle  new  slave.  But  Congress  turned  a  deaf  ear,  and  no  vote  was  ever 
taken  on  this  report."1  So  obnoxious  to  the  people  of  the  Territory 
did  this  immovability  of  Congress  become182  that  the  public  senti 
ment  forced  the  Governor  and  Judges,  who  were  then  the  semi- 
legislative  power,  to  endeavor  to  devise  a  means  of  overcoming  the 
Ordinance.  Under  their  provision  they  secured  a  means  of  intro 
ducing  slave  laborers  under  what  purported  to  be  "an  agreement" 
under  the  common  law,  whereby  the  servant  could  be  compelled  to 
perform  any  "agreement"  for  service  in  the  Territory.  Without 
consent  of  the  master,  no  one  could  remunerate  such  servant,  under 
penalty  of  "thirty-nine  lashes  at  the  public  whipping-post."" 

There  was  a  petition  in  1803  from  the  French  in  the  Illinois 
country  asking  Congress  to  annex  them  to  the  newly-acquired 
Louisiana  country,  but  it  added  nothing  new  to  their  slavery  posi 
tion.184 

In  1805  Michigan  (Wayne  county)  was  detached  from  Indiana. 
In  thi's  year,  what  was  called  the  second  degree  of  the  Indiana  Ter 
ritory  having  been  reached,  her  first  legislature  met.  The  first  ses 
sion  of  this  body  was  composed  of  twelve  members,  seven  represen 
tatives,  and  five  councilmen  (corresponding  to  the  State  senate). 
Of  the  Southerners,  Davis  Floyd,,  Joseph  Beggs,  and  William  Biggs, 
two  Marylanders.  Canada  and  New  England  furnished  the  birth 
place  or  former  home  of  the  others,  one  of  whom  was  born  abroad. 
Of  the  Southerners  Davis  Foyd,  Joseph  Beggs,  and  William  Biggs, 
all  of  Virginia,  were  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  and  in 
every  way  were  anti-slavery  men.185  Two  of  these  Southern  men 
were  able  lawyers,  and  Beggs  was  one  of  the  brothers  whom  Dunn 
has  pronounced  "men  of  great  strength,  of  great  heart,  and  of  great 
brain."188  Our  present  concern  is  to  see  the  attitude  of  this  body 


181Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  1,  387. 

182Dunn,   Indiana,  312. 

183Dunn,  Indiana,  315. 

184Dunn,  Indiana,  317. 

i85Dunn,  Indiana,  337,  356,  367. 

180Indiana,  356. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  95 

towards  slavery  and  the  prohibition  in  the  Ordinance.  They  passed 
the  famous  law  for  "indenturing  negroes,"  which  provided  that 
slaves  over  fifteen  years  old  might  be  brought  to  the  Territory;  if 
such  slaves  agreed  to  remain,  they  might  be  held  in  servitude  for 
life  in  no  way  differing  from  slaves  in  the  several  Southern  States. 
If  they  refused  to  be  "indentured/'  they  could  be  forcibly  returned 
to  where  slavery  was  unquestioned  as  to  its  legality.  Some  formali 
ties  as  to  registration  were  prescribed  which  in  no  way  affected  the 
servant's  status.  This  made  a  complete  servitude.  It  legalized  the 
introduction  of  new  slaves,  making  only  the  formal  matter  of  regis 
tration  and  a  pretense  of  the  negroes'  consent  a  prerequisite.  With 
the  existing  slaves  it  was  a  question  of  service  in  the  new  home  or 
incur  the  master's  displeasure  and  continue  in  the  South.  Both  the 
Territorial  and  afterward  the  State  courts  of  Illinois  and  Indiana 
recognized  its  validity.  Some  of  the  cases,  notably  one  in  1836, 
laid  stress  upon  the  point  that  "the  indenture  must  have  been  in 
conformity  with  the  Territorial  law."  "It  was  also  proceeded  under 
as  existing  law  in  1844.""  It  was  never  questioned  by  Congress. 
Slaves  were  held  in  Indiana  and  Illinois  for  many  years  after  each 
had. become  States.  Children  of  these  indentured  slaves  were  being 
held  in  Illinois  at  the  time  of  the  ratification  of  her  constitution  in 
1848.  Hinsdale  puts  the  date  at  1846  or  1847,  and  says  some  wero 
found  in  bondage  in  Michigan  even  later.158  Dunn  says,  "This  act 
at  the  time  was  satisfactory  to  a  majority  of  the  people."15  , 

In  those  early  days  roads  were  few;  many  settlements  were  hun 
dreds  of  miles  from  the  place  where  indentured  servants  must  be 
registered,  and  so  the  citizens  and  some  of  the  legislators  desired 
Congress  to  remove  the  Ordinance  restraint,  which  would  have  made 
the  formalities  prescribed  by  the  Territorial  authority  unnecessary. 
Accordingly  a  petition  was  forwarded  to  Congress,  signed  by  part 
of  the  legislature.  It  had  seven  names — two  of  them  Southern 
men,  three  Northern  men,  and  one  born  abroad  who  had  come  to 
Indiana  by  way  of  the  North.180  Local  questions  concerning  the  di 
vision  of  the  Territory  had  arisen;  Illinois  desired  separation  be 
cause  it  was  insisted  that  there  could  be  no  "harmony  of  political 

187Dunn,  Indiana,  335,  and  the  cases  there  cited. 

188Old  Northwest,  341  ;  Edward's  Hist,  of  111.  ;  Campbell's  Pol.  Hist.  Mich.,  246. 

189Indiana.  330. 

190Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  1,  485. 


96  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

interests  between  the  two  sections."  A  strong  petition,  from  the 
Illinois  people,  having  350  signers,  some  of  whom  had  overcome 
their  antipathy  to  slavery  in  their  desire  for  division,  was  forwarded 
to  Congress.  An  additional  memorial  was  presented  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  January  17,  1806.  A  committee  representing 
the  several  townships,  most  of  them  opposed  to  General  Harrison's 
administration,  met,  denounced  the  indenture  law,  and  prepared  to 
memorialize  Congress  to  interfere ;  but  when  they  remembered  that 
the  "masses  were  in  favor  of  the  indenture  of  slavery"  they  changed 
their  front  and  "substituted  a  fervent  appeal  for  either  a  condi 
tional  or  an  absolute  revocation  of  the  sixth"  article  of  the  Ordi 
nance.191  All  these  petitions,  together  with  prior  petitions  and  re 
ports  thereon,  including  the  petition  of  the  Vincenncs  convention 
of  1802,  in  the  House  of  Representatives  were  referred  to  a  new 
committee,  of  which  Garnet t,  of  Virginia,  was  chairman.  He  had 
associated  with  him  three  Northerners,  two  other  Southern  men, 
and  Park,  the  Indiana  representative.  Park  was  a  young  lawyer 
who  had  gone  from  his  native  home  in  New  Jersey  to  the  Territory 
in  1S01.192  This  gave  the  North  a  majority  of  the  committee.  They 
reported  in  favor  of  a  suspension  for  ten  years,  legalizing  during 
that  time  the  introduction  of  slaves  born  within  the  United 
States.193  No  vote  was  reached  upon  this  report,  and  concerning 
these  petitions  there  was  no  further  Congressional  action. 

Popular  clamors,  some  for  Statehood,  others  for  division,  now 
bore  down  upon  the  legislature  from  every  quarter  of  the  Territory. 
So  when  that  body  met  in  1806  they  passed  a  unanimous  resolution 
asking  Congress  for  a  suspension  of  the  prohibition.194  And  not 
tli is  only;  they  further  tightened  the  indenture  bonds.  Some  ques 
tion  had  arisen  as  to  whether  indentured  slaves  could  be  sold  as 
property  under  execution.  This  legislature  declared  such  slaves  to 
be  property  subject  to  execution  and  sale.  More  than  this:  they 
enacted  a  law  forbidding  slaves  to  be  as  much  as  ten  miles  from  the 
master's  home  without  his  pass;  if  so  found,  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
before  whom  any  one  could  take  the  delinquent,  could  order  him 
punished  "by  not  more  than  twenty-five  lashes."  It  was  further 


191Dunn,  Indiana,  344. 

192Dunn,  Indiana,  322. 

193Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  1,  450. 

194Am.  State  Papers  .  Misc.,  v.  1,  467. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  9? 

provided  that  if  "a  slave  went  upon  the  plantation  of  a  person  other 
than  his  master,  such  person  might  punish  the  offender  with  ten 
lashes."11  Yet  these  laws  were  passed  by  a  body  whose  Council  had 
but  one  Southern  member,  and  whose  Northern  majority  could  have 
effectually  barred  any  law.  In  common  with  similar  laws  in  the 
older  North,  as  I  have  elsewhere  shown,  they  show  that  the  South 
ern  people  were  not  peculiar  in  the  restrictive  laws  which  regulated 
the  movements  of  their  slaves.  The  more  numerous  the  slave,  body 
and  the  greater  the  outside  influence  as  a  disturbing  power,  the 
more  rigid  the  restraining  laws  of  necessity  became. 

This  last  petition  was  referred  by  the  lower  House  of  Congress 
to  a  committee  composed  of  four  Northern  and  three  Southern 
men.  This  Northern  majority,  representing  New  Jersey,  Massa 
chusetts,  and  Pennsylvania,  reported  favoring  removing  all  prohi 
bition  for  a  period  of  ten  years.  But  upon  this  report  no  vote  or 
other  action  was  ever  had.196 

Throughout  all  this  time  in  the  Territory  there  was  even  greater 
Northern  pro-slavery  cooperation  than  that  given  from  the  South. 
Many  Northern  citizens,  since  they  had  already  come  in  contact 
with  slavery  in  the  new  home,  advocated  its  further  introduction. 
Did  they  find  the  institution  a  source  of  revenue?  Did  they  hope 
to  perpetuate  slavery  ?  Let  the  history  they  made  answer,  in  the 
petition,  which  is  practically  representative  of  the  others,  received 
by  the  United  States  Senate  January  21,  1807,  we  find  the  peti 
tioners  anxious  for  Statehood:  they  had  not  had  the  opportunity 
to  attract  emigrants  which  we  shall  see  Ohio  had  enjoyed.  The 
existing  slavery,  little  of  which  had  tainted  the  Ohio  section,  was 
being  protected ;  whatever  of  social-labor  odium  there  was,  was  al 
ready  in  their  midst.  They  thought  that  if  all  restrictions  were  re 
moved  more  white  settlers  would  join  them;  and  thus  aid,  they  set 
forth,  the  sooner  to  secure  those  "political  rights  which  distinguish 
the  Americans  from  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  othe-'  Govern 
ments."  They  frankly  said  to  Congress  that  in  their  country 
slavery  was  an  economic  failure — which  is  now  admitted  to  have 
been  true — and  they  gave  the  correct  reasons,  saying  that  "from  the 
situation,  soil,  climate,  and  products  of  the  Territory  it  is  not  be- 


195Dunn,   Indiana,  349. 
196Ib.,  354. 

7 


98  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

lieved  that  the  number  of  slaves  would  ever  bear  such  proportion 
to  the  white  population  as  to  endanger  the  internal  peace  and  pros 
perity  of  the  country."11" 

In  the  petition  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Legislative 
Council,  which  did  not  reach  Congress  until  November  13,  1807, 
the  legislature  called  attention  to  the  action  of  the  Vincennes  con 
vention,  the  Territorial  slavery  laws  already  in  force,  and  the  sev 
eral  petitions  previously  before  Congress,  and  said  that  "as  the  citi 
zens  of  the  Territory  decidedly  favor  the  toleration  of  slavery,  the 
Legislative  Council  and  the  House  of  Representatives  consider  it 
incumbent  on  them  briefly  to  state,  on  behalf  of  themselves  and 
their  constituents,  the  reasons  which  have  influenced  them  in  favor 
of  the  measure"  providing  for  removing  the  prohibition.    They  then 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  request  for  removal  of  all  restric 
tions  is  "not  a  proposition  of  liberty  or  slavery.    Slavery  now  exists 
in  the  United  States,"  they  continue,  "and  in  this  Territory.     It 
was  the  crime  of  England,  .  .  .  and  now  becomes  a  question,  merely 
of:  policy,  in  what  way  the  slaves  are  to  be  disposed  of  that  they  may 
be  least  dangerous  to  the  community,  most  useful  to  their  pro 
prietors,  and  by  which  their  situation  may  be  most  ameliorated." 
Then  they  set  out  that  on  January  1st,  then  next  following,  the 
Federal  law  prohibiting  the  importation  of  new  slaves  would  go 
into  effect,  and  add,  "Hence,  it  is  evident  the  proposed  toleration 
will  not  increase  the  number  in  the  United  States."    This  was  an 
entirely  logical  and  legitimate  reasoning.    No  one  then  conjectured 
that  New  England  would  defy  the  national  prohibitive  import  laws 
for  fifty  years.    The  petitioners  called  attention  to  the  crowded  con 
dition  of  the  slave  States,  and  then  reaffirmed  their  immunity  from 
danger  of  overcrowding  or  of  a  continuance  of  long  slavery  in  their 
section,  "owing  to  the  situation  of  the  Territory,  its  climate  and 
products/'     In  proof  of  their  contention,  they  cite  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee.    How  truly  they  argued  tho  after  history  of  each  proves. 
The  larger  areas  of  both  States  proved  unadapted  to  slave  labor 
even  down  to  the  Civil  War.     They  might  have  added  to  their 
proof   the   northwestern   part   of   Virginia, — a   large   area   where 
slavery  had  been  legal  for  more  than  r  hundred  years,— which  was 
so  unsuited  to  slave  labor  that  it  became  the  unconstitutional  State 


19TAm.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.,  1,  467. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  99 

of  West  Virginia  as  a  compliment  to  what  its  situation,  climate, 
soil,  and  products  had  done  for  it.  Hence,  it  was  argued  that  some 
additional  settlers  would  be  induced  io  come  if  encumbering  for 
malities  were  removed,  the  Territory  would  sooner  become  a  State, 
and  the  few  slaves  brought  in  by  the  Southern  emigrants  would  be 
placed  in  a  position  either  to  become  free  themselves  or  to  trans 
mit  that  privilege  to  their  children. 

Accompanying  this  resolution  we  now  have  under  review,  was  a 
resolution  and  prayer  by  a  ^numerous  meeting  of  the  citizens  of 
Clark  county  .  .  .  (agreeably  to  notice  previously  given)/'  which 
had  met  October  10,  1807.  This  gathering  expressed  the  desire  that 
'•Congress  will  suspend  any  legislative  act  on  this  subject  until  we 
shall,  by  the.  Constitution,  be  admitted  into  the  Union  and  have  a 
right  to  adopt  such  a  Constitution  in  this  respect,  as  may  comport 
with  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  citizens/"  "As  to  the  interests 
of  the  Territory,  a  variety  of  opinions  exist,"  they  also  declare ;  and 
while  stating  their  opposition  to  holding  slaves,  without  expressing 
an  opinion  as  to  whether  slavery  would  help  or  retard  Territorial 
growth,  they  simply  pray  Congress  to  leave  the  matter  where  it  is 
"until  the  constitutional  number  of  citizens  of  this  Territory  shall 
exercise  that  right"  of  final  decision  in  forming  their  constitu 
tions.198  This  was  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Constitution,  that  "the 
power  of  forming  Government  for  and  the  regulation  of  the  inter 
nal  concerns"  be  left  to  each  State — using  the  words  of  the  Vir 
ginia  Colonial  Legislature  when  instructing  her  delegates  in  1775 
to  the  Continental  Congress.199  This  doctrine  and  this  prayer  came 
from  the  opponents  to  the  admission  of  slaves.  It  came  from  a 
gathering  composed  of  immigrants  from  both  North  and  South;  it 
was  a  declaration  that  Northern  settlers  opposed  to  slavery  believed 
that  the  question  was  one  which  the  majority  of  the  bona  fide  citi 
zens  should  settle;  and  not  that  they  should  do  so  only,  but  this 
declaration  by  a  representative  gathering  is  additional  evidence 
that  the  vast  majority  of  citizens  in  the  Northwest  believed  that 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  construed  under  the  national  Constitution, 
guaranteed  to  sach  Territory  or  State  the  right  to  regulate,  unfet 
tered  by  national  or  other  outside  influence,  the  domestic  institution 


198Am.   State  Papers  :  Misc.,  v.  1,  486. 
199Am.  Archives,  4th  series,  v.  6,  1524. 


100  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION, 

of  slavery.  That  Congress  actually  allowed  this  to  be  done,  "thus 
setting  an  example  for  the  government  of  all  future  territories/7 
let  me  briefly  show. 

January,  1808,  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  Novem 
ber,  1807,  in  the  Senate,  petitions  and  memorials  called  attention 
to  the  indenture  law,  and  asked  Congress  to  nullify  it.200  Mr.  Dunn 
points  out  that  it  was  not  neglect  that  Congress  failed  TO  take  any 
notice  of  the  law  or  to  declare  it  void,  and  that  unquestionably  Con 
gress  meant  to  leave  the  matter  to  be  settled  by  the  people  at  the 
ballot — a  doctrine  which,  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  fight  in  1854, 
came  to  be  known  as  "squatter  sovereignty." 

When,  September,  1808,  the  Territorial  legislature  again  met, 
fifteen  slavery  petitions  from  all  parts  of  the  Territory  hurriedly 
came  before  the  legislative  body.  "Of  these  eleven  v.  ere  against  any 
legislative  action  for  the  admission  of  slavery" ;  and  of  all  the  sign 
ers,  there  was  a  majority  of  six  hundred  against  slavery.  Now, 
mark  the  change  in  the  legislature!  Slavery  had  been  tried;  the 
people  are  reversed  in  their  sentiments.  Let  us  look  for  the  causes. 

In  the  Territorial  House  Representative  Johnson,  a  Virginian, 
an  able  lawyer,  and  up  to  this  time  a  strong  advocate  of  slavery, 
and  one  of  the  men  who  helped  to  enact  the  indenture  law ,  as  chair 
man  of  a  select  committee  presented  to  the  House  a  report,  which 
Dunn  says  "is  entitled  to  rank  among  the  ablest,  if  not  the  ablest, 
State  paper  ever  produced  in  Indiana."2'  It  declares  that  the 
"'most  flagrant  abuse"  was  made  of  the  indenture  law,  and  that  the 
slaves  held  under  it  were  so  completely  subjugated  that  "the  con 
dition  of  these  unfortunate  persons  is  not  only  involuntarily  servi 
tude,  but  downright  slavery."  Then  follows  the  important  feature : 
The  report  declares  that  free  labor  produced  a  condition  of  superior 
agriculture;  built  manufactories,  roads,  bridges,  etc.,  far  in  ad 
vance  of  anything  that  could  be  produced  under  slave  labor.  The 
report  was  adopted  without  opposition  in  the  House.  A  bill  re 
pealing  the  indenture  law  was  passed,  signed,  and  sent  to  the  Coun 
cil.  Of  the  members  of  the  Council  then  in  attendance  there  were 
but  three — Jones,  Bond,  and  Fisher — two  from  the  North  and  one, 
Bond,  from  the  South.  Here  was  a  Northern  majority  and  in  its 


200Dunn,  Indiana,  362-3. 
-"'Indiana,  371. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  101 

hands  an  opportunity  to  destroy  the  local  slavery  law — a  chance  to 
restore  to  its  full  force  the  Ordinance.  What  did  they  do  ?  It  was 
expected  that  Illinois  would  soon  be  severed  from  Indiana,  and  in 
its  movement  westward  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  had  not  yet  cap 
tured  all  the  Illinois  French  and  some  Americans.  These  three 
men  were  looking  to  the  Illinois  country  for  future  political  pre 
ferment,  and  "they  had  too  much  regard  for  their  political  future 
in  Illinois  to  repeal  the  indenture  law;  and  so  it  was  saved  as  a 
rich  legacy  to  our  sister  State  by  these  three  men,"  says  Indiana's 
impartial  historian.202 

The  report  adopted  by  the  House,  based  upon  a  sudden  change 
of  popular  sentiment,  also  assigns  a  political  reason  for  all  future 
suppression  of  slavery.  It  says  they  must  look  to  New  England  for 
the  greater  number  of  immigrants;  and  political  antipathy  to  the 
South  thus  early  manifests  itself.  It  was  insisted  that  slave-hold 
ers  had  ample  territory  in  Missouri  and  to  the  south,  and  it  was 
argued  that  to  admit  new  slaves  to  the  Northwest  would  be  an 
unequal  distribution  of  territory;  and  by  the  admission  of  slaves  to 
Indiana,  they  argue,  "the  comparative  importance  of  the  Middle  and 
Eastern  States,  the  real  strength  of  the  Union,  is  greatly  reduced.7' 
For  this  political  reason  they  insist  that  their  own  pro-slavery  law 
should  be  repealed,  and. that  "it  is  inexpedient  to  petition  Congress 
for  a  modification  of  that  part  of  the  Ordinance  relative  to 
slavery."2'  When  it  was  thought  that  slavery  would  promote  im 
migration  and  relieve  the  labor  market,  these  same  people  intro 
duced  slaves  under  a  legal,  valid  local  law — completely  ignoring  the 
Congressional  Ordinance.  When  it  was  demonstrated  that  they 
had  nothing  to  lose,  when  slavery  had  been  tried  and  proven  un- 
adapted  to  the  country,  a  reversal  of  sentiment  quickly  follows, 
As  the  Northwest  begins  to  come  under  the  influence  of  New  Eng 
land  political  leaders  the  Ordinance  becomes  a  useful  political 
scapegoat.  The  growing  feeling  of  a  oneness  with  New  England 
as  against  the  South  is  more  forcibly  seen  when  we  remember  that 
they  used  almost  indentically  the  same  language  as  that  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  when,  in  opposing  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana,  he  said,  "One  inevitable  consequence  of  the  annexation 

,  Indiana,  376. 
374. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

would  be  to  diminish  the  relative  weight  and  influence  of  the  North 
ern  section/'204 

The  third  General  Assembly  of  Indiana  contained  but  four  pro- 
slavery  men.  They  met  in  1810  and  immediately  repealed  the  in 
denture  law,  and  restored  the  force  of  the  Ordinance  of  1737.  This, 
of  course,  did  not  affect  the  status  of  slaves  introduced  while  the 
law  was  in  force. 

Let  me  close  this  all-too-brief  examination  of  slavery  in  Indiana, 
in  the  words  of  J.  P.  Dunn,  secretary  of  the  Indiana  Historical 
Society,  writing  in  American  Commonwealth  Series,  edited  by 
Horace  E.  Schudder,  of  Harvard  University :  "We  do  not  go  beyond 
the  bounds  of  our  State  to  give  praise  for  the  final  solution  of  our 
local  slavery  question,  for  Congress  put  the  solution  upon  the  men 
of  Indiana,  and  they  worked  it  out  on  Indiana  soil.  For  the  privi 
lege  of  solving  it,  under  the  Ordinance,  without  the  interference 
of  Congress,  our  thanks  go  abroad,  but  to  no  section."205 

Turning  now  to  Illinois.  Before  the  repeal  of  the  indenture  law 
the  Illinois  country  had  been  erected  into  a  separate  Territory,  and 
hence  it  was  unaffected  by  the  repeal.  As  we  have  seen,  in  the  ear 
lier  days  slavery  was  much  more  popular  in  the  Illinois  country 
and  continued  to  be  for  a  longer  period  of  time  than  in  Indiana. 
But  in  the  end,  with  her  slavery  proved  of  no  more  economic  value, 
and  hence  had  increased  slowly.  In  1820,  when  the  old  indenture 
law  was  yet  in  force  there,  Illinois  had  only  917  slaves.20" 

In  1822,  Hinsdale  and  other  historians  tell  us,  there  were  practi 
cally  no  politics  in  Illinois,  and  "elections  turned  largely  on  local 
questions  and  personal  preferences."*  In  the  gubernatorial  race 
the  pro-slavery  men  had  5,302  votes  against  3,332  of  all  others. 
But  by  1824,  after  a  bitter  and  exciting  campaign,  in  which  the 
chief  question  was  a  proposition  to  strengthen  the  old  indenture 
law  passed  while  this  section  was  a  part  of  Indiana,  and  to  make  the 
introduction  of  new  slaves  constitutional,  out  of  11,772  votes,  the 
pro-'slavery  men  had  only  4,950  against  6,322.208  Slavery  in  Illinois 


204Sparks,  Expansion  of  the  Am.  People,  201,  n. 
205Indiana,  444. 
206Dunn,  Indiana,  406. 
^Hinsdale  Old  Northwest,  350. 
208Hinsdale,  Old  Northwest,  352. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  103 

had  proven  an  economic  failure.,  and  by  1830  she  had  only  747 
slaves.  In  proportion  as  her  slave  labor  surrendered  to  improved 
methods  and  intelligent  competition,  her  anti-slavery  sentiment 
continued  to  increase,  and  by  1848  her  new  constitution  put  an  end 
to  negro  slavery  within  her  State  jurisdiction.  For  forty-three 
years — almost  half  a  century — the  slave  provision  in  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  had  been  void  as  to  this  part  of  the  Northwest,  and  a  com 
plete  form  of  slavery  was  legal, — a  slavery  which  differed  in  no  es 
sential  from  that  in  any  Southern  State,  except  nominally  its  he 
redity  was  limited. 

Whatever  of  restriction  the  Ordinance  applied  to  any  rne  State 
formed  from  the  Northwest  it  applied  to  each  and  all — their  ab 
solute  equality  with  reference  to  each  other  is  indisputable.  Since 
the  Ordinance  itself  provided  for  changes  and  alterations  of  itself 
mutually  made,  and  also  for  passing  the  Northwest  States  under 
the  full  protection  of  whatever  legal  form  of  government  should 
succeed  the  Confederation  (for  at  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the 
Ordinance  it  was  unmistakably  plain  that  the  Confederation  was 
no  more  than  temporary),  then  whatever  position  or  exercise  of 
jurisdiction  the  States  took  with  reference  to  any  question,  such 
as  the  regulation  of  domestic  and  local  slavery,  if  Congress  per 
mitted  unquestioned  this  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  there  was  a 
mutual  alteration  even  if  the  Ordinance  had  included  slavery  under 
the  unlimited  "forever,"  because  immediately  after  the  expression, 
"forever  remain  unalterable,"  it  said,  "unless  by  common  consent," 

Under  the  Constitution  Congress  and  the  Northwest  Territory  an.d 
States  by  their  solemn  acts  mutually  construed  the  Ordinance  bind 
ing  as  to  slavery  no  longer  than  any  political  division  took  upon  itself 
the  responsibility  of  exercising  jurisdiction  over  that  question.  If 
the  Ordinance  forbade  slavery  jurisdiction  to  the  Northwest  States, 
as  generally  claimed,  then  it  forbade  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  negro 
slavery ;  hence,  any  local  law  whatever,  having  the  sanction  of  Con 
gress,  which  made  a  slavery  in  any  form,  no  matter  if  it  purported 
to  be  a  servitude  by  consent  of  one  already  under  the  duress  of 
recognized  bondage,  was  a  mutual  alteration  of  the  Ordinance. 

By  Art,  VI.  of  her  constitution  in  1818  Illinois  confirmed  all 
slavery  existing  pursuant  to  and  by  virtue  of  the  indenture  law, 
thus  giving  her  most  solemn  sanction  to  its  validity;  as  to  the 


104  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

future,  she  repealed  the  law,  and  established  gradual  emancipa 
tion  for  those  thereafter  born  of  the  slaves  then  held  under  the 
indenture  law,  thus  giving  another  indubitable  proof  of  its  validity 
and  legally  binding  force.  Armed  with  this  constitution,  Illinois 
knocked  for  admission  to  the  Union  "upon  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  State's  in  all  respects  whatsoever"— one  condition 
which  the  Ordinance  had  provided  for  this  very  occasion.  Con 
gress  heard  her  knock,  invited  her  in,  carefully  inspected  the  con 
stitution  which  her  people  had  solemnly  ratified,  and  on  Decem 
ber  3,  1818,  gave  assent  to  what  she  had  done,  thus  completing 
the  mutuality,  in  a  resolution  in  which  it  was  declared  that  the 
"Constitution  and  State  government  so  framed  is  republican  and 
in  conformity  to  the  principles  of  the  articles  of  compact  between 
the  original  States  and  the  people  and  States  and  territories  north 
west  of  the  river  Ohio"20  —the  "articles  of  compact"  being  none 
other  than  those  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  Excepting  the  ques 
tion  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  their  importation  after  a  specified  time, 
the  Constitution  of  the  Union  -had  left  the  regulation  of  slavery 
with  the  respective  States;  Indiana  interpreted  the  Ordinance 
under  the  Constitution  to  guarantee  her  this  right;  Congress  gave 
not  alone  her  tacit  consent,  but  at  last  made,  in  admitting  Illinois, 
this  explicit  declaration.  Congress  thus  explicitly  declared  the  local 
slave  laws  of  Illinois,  which  created  new  slavery  while  protecting 
the  original,  actually  to  be  in  conformity  to  the  articles  of  com 
pact  as  contained  in  the  Ordinance,  and  unquestionably  in  full  ac 
cord  with  the  Constitution. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  the  constant  decrease  of  pro-slavery  sentiment, 
and  with  full  knowledge  of  their  local  control  of  this  domestic  in 
stitution,  New  Englanders  had  begun  to  intrude  upon  the  South, 
and  early  in  the  first  part  of  the  last  century  settlers  from  New 
England  then  living  in  Illinois  opened  an  "underground  route" 
and  "began  to  assist  slaves  from  the  South  into  Canada."210 

Neither  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  the  North,  the  South,  nor  Con 
gress  saved  Indiana  or  Illinois  from  slavery.  Their  anti-slavery 
sentiment  was  a  product  of  the  native  soil;  a  majority  of  the  peo- 


M9U.  S.  Ch.  and  Cons.,  445,  446,  449. 
210Sparks,  Expansion  of  the  Am:  People,  355-6. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  105 

pie  at  last  found  no  profit  in  slave  labor;  nature  for  them,  as  for 
the  older  North,  solved  the  slave  problem.  The  same  inexorable 
natural  law,  working  in  harmony  with  man's  economic  nature, 
which  drove  slavery  from  these  two  portions  of  the  original  North 
west  Territory,  had,  for  reasons  now  to  be  indicated,  even  earlier 
operated  similarly  in  the  detached  portions :  Ohio  and  Michigan. 


VI. 

THE    NEGKO  AND   OHIO— ORDINANCE 

OF  1787. 

ECONOMIC  CONDITIONS  REGULATING  SLAVERY  IN  OHIO  AND  MISSOURI. 

The  history  of  the  slave  question  in  Ohio  is  most  fruitful  as  a 
source  from  which  to  interpret  the  ante-bellum  Northern  and 
Southern  slavery  positions. 

Since  it  is  claimed  that  to  the  Ohio  Company,  a  body  of  New 
Englanders  in  search  of  special  favors,  we  are  indebted  for  the  re 
quest  for  slave-prohibition  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  at  this  place 
it  will  be  well  to  examine  a  little  more  fully  the  causes  which  led 
to  this  famous  proviso  or  so-called  compact.211 

Few  things  have  been  more  overestimated  as  to  effect  than  this 
the  sixth  article  in  the  act  of  Congress  which  formulated  a  Terri 
torial  government  for  the  Northwest,  known  to  history  as  the  Ordi 
nance  of  the  13th  of  July,  1787.  It  has  been  accorded  a  place  in 
slave  history,  and  consequently  one  of  no  little  importance  in  the 
history  of  our  country,  which  it  does  not  deserve.  The  motives 
which  prompted  its  attempted  regulation  of  slavery  have  been  va 
riously,  and  perhaps  with  as  little  accuracy,  estimated.  Black  in 
his  hifetory  of  Ohio  insists  that  Jefferson  and  Virginia  had  economic 
and  selfish  motives  for  the  anti-slavery  provisions  in  the  various 
measures  urged  with  reference  to  the  Northwest;  and,  hence,  that 
the  South  was  similarly  actuated  in  supporting  the  Ordinance  of 
1787.  Whatever  these  reasons  were,  there  was  certainly  no  parti 
san,  sectional,  political  motive.  The  Ordinance  which  Jefferson 
proposed  in  1784  was  meant  to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  territory 
north  of  thirty-first  parallel.212  Of  the  Southern  States  this  terri 
tory  is  now  covered  by  Alabama,  Tennessee,  Mississippi,  and  Ken- 


211For  a  clear  proof  of  the  Southern  authorship  of  the  Ordinance,  see  Benton's 
Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  I.,  134  et  seq. 

212Schouler,  History  of  the  U.  S.,   Vol.   I.,  112. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  107 

tucky.    Mr.  Koosevelt  takes  pretty  much  the  same  view  of  the  Or 
dinance  of  1787  as  that  advanced  by  Mr.  Black.     Mr.  Eoosevelt 
says  of  the  Ordinance  that  "it  was  in  its  result  a  deadly  stroke 
against  the  traffic  in  and  ownership  of  human  beings,  and  the  blow 
was  dealt  by  Southern  men,,  to  whom  all  honor  should  ever  be 
given/'213    I  have  already  discussed  the  extent  of  the  "blow."     He 
further  says,  "The  prohibition  was  brought  about  by  the   Ohio 
Company."2"    His  theory  is  that  Congress  wanted  to  sell  these  new 
lands,  which  is  correct,  and  that  the  Company  who  wanted  to  buy 
"were  determined  to  keep  slavery"  out  of  the  Territory.    But  why  ? 
All  through  his  writings  he  admits  that  there  was  "at  that  time  no 
opposition  from  consciousness  of  any  wrong  in  slave-holding."23 
Whatever  Jefferson's  and  the  South's  reason  for  this  prohibition, 
to  my  mind  that  of  New  England,  granting  that  she  was  behind  the 
move,  is  clear.     This  Ohio  Company  were  New  England  men;  at 
the  head  was  General  Rufus  Putnam,  of  Revolutionary  fame,  and 
cousin  of  Israel  Putnam.     They  had  organized  to  speculate  in 
land.216    They  were  Federalist^  in  politics,  and  men  who  had  seen 
that  negro  slavery  at  home  was  not  profitable.     They  were  not 
slave-holders,  nor  were  they  capitalists.    Mr.  Eoosevelt  says  of  them, 
"The  new  settlers  were  almost  all  soldiers  of  the  Revolutionary 
armies;   they  were  hard-working,   orderly  men.   .   .   ."21      Hence, 
slaverv  or  no  slavery  became  a  business  matter  with  these  early  set 
tlers  from  the  older  North.     They  were  men  who  were  after  land, 
says  Mr.  Roosevelt;  Virginia  had  military  land  reservations  in  the 
same  neighborhood;  her  Revolutionary  soldiers,  who  were  entitled 
to  these  lands,  were  after  land,  too;218  if  slavery  could  be  kept  out 
of  the  new  territory  during  its  early  settlement  and  during  its 
initial  territorial  days,  New  Englanders  would  be  able  to  control  the 
matter  when  they  came  to  legislate  for  themselves,  and  Southern 
opposition  would  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.    This  wafe  exactly  what 
did  occur.     Now,  if  Virginia  and  Southern  emigration  had  been 


Winning  of  the  West,  Vol.  III.,  258. 
^Ib.,  262. 

'"'Smith  in  Free  Soil  and  Liberty  Parties,  and  all  modern  writers  agree  in  this 
particular. 

210Smith,  St.  Clair  Papers,  Vol.  I.,  124. 
2"The  Winning  of  the  West,  Vol.  III.,  266. 
218King,  History  of  Ohio. 


108  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

prospective  buyers,  the  Ohio  Company  might  have  taken  another 
view.  That  the  bulk  of  the  actual  and  possible  Southern  emigra 
tion  at  the  time  to  the  Northwest  was  not  a  buying  people,  so  far 
as  Cutler  and  the  Ohio  Company  could  see,  is  shown  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  ex-soldiers  who  were  entitled  to  lands,  who  en 
deavored  to  have  the  prohibitive  clause  abrogated.  North  of  the  Ohio 
were  thousands  of  acres  of  "bounty  lands"  due  to  Southern  soldiers 
who  might  enter  upon  them.  Many  of  these  soldiers  owned  slaves, 
and  naturally  desired  to  carry  them  to  their  new  homes.  The  New 
Englanders  themselves  were  "hard-working  men" ;  they  knew  from 
experience  that  a  man  who  did  menial  labor  in  a  slave  community 
soon  came  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  "poor  whites" ;  so  they  de 
termined  to  avoid  competition  in  the  labor  market,  and  to  guard 
against  this  social  odium.  Henoe,  these  early  New  England  land 
sharks  found  it  advisable  to  lobby  Congress,  and  the  astute  Doctor 
Cutler,  of  Massachusetts,  was  engaged  for  this  purpose.  As  a  re 
sult,  "a  fortnight  after  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance,"  Congress 
nominally  sold  to  the  Ohio  Company,  as  the  new  land  company 
called  themselves,  one  and  one-half  million  acres  of  land  north  of 
the  Ohio.210  Dr.  Cutler,  the  Ohio  Company's  agent  and  lobbyist 
for  favorable  territorial  government,  says  in  his  diary,  "By  this  or 
dinance  we  obtained  the  grant  of  near  five  million  of  acres  of  land, 
amounting  to  three  million  and  a  half  of  dollars.  One  million  and 
a  half  for  the  Ohio  Company  and  the  remainder  for  a  private  specu 
lation."21  Payment  was  to  be  made  in  soldier's  certificates,221  which 
were  practically  worthless. 

So  step  by  step  each  move  of  the  Northern  leaders  for  anti-slavery 
regulations  may  be  traced  to  the  most  mercenary  motives,  while 
side  by  side  with  these  she  developed  an  anti-slavery  fanaticism 
against  Southern  slavery  until  self-protection  drove  Southern  men 
to  suspend  all  emancipation  hopes,  and  enter  a  vigorous  fight 
against  the  insane  methods  of  these  misled  and  unduly  excited 
pseudo-philanthropists. 

I  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  digress  here  to  observe  that  Mr. 
Rhodes  remarked  that  had  Jefferson  lived  in  I860  he  would  have 


219Roosevelt,  The  Winning  of  the  West,  Vol.  III.,  263. 

^Smith,  St.  Clair  Papers,  Vol.  I.,  130. 

221  Justin  Winsor,   The  Western  Movement,   291. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  109 

been  an  abolitionist,  is  entirely  -unwarranted.    Coming  from  so  high 
an  authority,  the  statement  is  the  more  unfortunate.    No  man  was 
more  loyal  to  the  Constitution  than  Thomas  Jefferson.    That  Jef 
ferson  would  for  one  moment  have  sanctioned  its  wilful  disregard 
as  did  the  abolitionists  in  1860,  is  straining  Jefferson's  doctrine 
beyond  justification  to  get  a  good  man  seemingly  on  the  side  of 
wrong.    The  slavery  question  was  one  of  how,  of  whether  the  Fed 
eral  Government  or  the  State  should  decide  the  negro's  destiny. 
Jefferson  was  always  a  State  abolitionist,  and  at  no  time  did  he 
ever  favor  the  barbarous  practices  so  generally  prosecuted  or  coun 
tenanced  by  the  abolitionists  of  1860;  he  never  favored  impover 
ishing  the  master.    The  abolitionists  of  1860,  nor  their  predecessors, 
proposed  an}'  remuneration  for  the  master's  loss,  nor  any  solution 
for  the  after-conditions  of  emancipation  which  were  inevitable  in 
dense  slave  communities.     Jefferson  held  that  emancipated  slaves 
and  the  former  masters  could  not  peaceably  cohabit  in  the  same  po 
litical  unit.    He  was  correct,  especially  with  reference  to  the  slave 
as  he  knew  him.    Even  with  nearly  one  hundred  years  of  civiliza 
tion  since  Jefferson's  day,  the  negro  in  the  South  is  a  problem. 
The 'abolitionists  of  and  prior  to  1860  opposed  colonization.     Jef 
ferson  taught  gradual  emancipation,  and  he  held  that  "emancipa 
tion  and  deportation"    (colonization)   should  go  hand  in  hand.222 
To  return  to  slavery  and  its  treatment  by  that  part  of  the  North 
west,  which,  as  we  saw,  had  been  left  after  the  first  division  of  the 
Territory  in  May,  1800.     From  the  Ohio  river  to  Fort  Recovery, 
now  a  little  east  of  the  western  boundary  of  the  present  State  of 
Ohio,  north  to  Canada  a  line  was  run,  and  to  the  east  of  this  the 
Territory  still  retained  the  name  Northwest  until  it  became  the 
State  of  Ohio  in  1803.     Let  me  hurriedly  outline  its  slavery  atti 
tude  from  the  time  we  left  it  in  1800  with  General  Arthur  St.  Clair 
as  governor.    The  members  of  the  general  assembly  for  the  original 
Northwest  Territory,  which  had  met  in  1799,  nearly  all  lived  in 
that  part  east  of  the  division  line  of  1800.     This  body,  with  one 
new  member  to  fill  the  place  of  the  one  who  became  a  citizen  of 
Indiana,  met  again,  this  time  as  the  representative  of  the  Ohio 
part  (then  yet  called  the  Northwest  Territory)   on  November  24, 


222Randall   (New  York).  Life  of  Jefferson,  Vol.  I.,  398;  Morse's  Jefferson,  52. 


110  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

1801.  Being  composed  of  the  same  men,  there  was  no  change  in 
their  attitude  towards  slavery.  However,  there  is  an  important 
fact  which  must  not  be  overlooked.  All  the  time  this  legislature 
had  voiced  the  sentiment  of  the  eastern,  afterward  the  Ohio  sec 
tion  of  the  Northwest  Territory.  Burnet  unquestionably  speaks  of 
those  who  were  then  in  what  became  Ohio,  when  he  says  that  they 
were  so  solidly  opposed  to  slavery.  The  more  westernly  and  north 
erly  settlers,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  were  from  the  Spanish  and 
French  days  slave-holders.  So  there  was  really  no  change  as  to 
this  matter  in  the  western  part  of  the  Territory  after  the  division 
and  after  it  became  the  Indiana  Territory,  with  Harrison  as  gov 
ernor. 

When  Ohio  came  to  her  first  constitutional  convention  there  was 
not  that  unanimity  concerning  slavery  which  had  prevailed  in  the  leg 
islature.  One  faction  of  this  convention  determined  to  secure  a  clause 
modifying  the  slavery  provision,  and  so  numerous  was  this  element 
that  they  came  within  one  vote  of  succeeding.223  This  pro-slavery 
faction  could  not  have  been  of  Southern  extraction  since  there  were 
fewer  Southern  men  among  the  delegates  than  there  were  in  the 
legislature  which  showed  such  negro  antagonism.224  When  it  was 
discovered  that  the  negro  did  not  meet  popular  approval  as  a  use 
ful  and  productive  economic  laborer,  this  same  convention  showed 
no  disposition  to  treat  him  with  any  moral  consideration  whatever. 
The  sentiment  which  soon  drove  the  free  negro  by  cruel  expulsion 
from  the  State  came  prominently  to  the  surface  in  this  body  met 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  State  which  had  the  "encouragement  of 
religion"  incorporated  side  by  side  with  the  slavery  article  in  its 
Territorial  organic  act.  Cutler,  a  Christian  minister  though  he 
was,  had  procured  what  he  regarded  as  a  happy  government  for 
white  New  Englanders.  The  negro  in  Ohio  could  not  be  used  to 
profit;  he  was  not  wanted;  no  charity  was  to  be  his  unless  that 
charity  could  be  made  a  tool  to  filch  cash  from  the  pocket  of  a 
Southern  white  man  or  gain  strength  for  Northern  political  eco 
nomic  demands.  This  convention,  composed  largely  of  New  Eng 
landers,  anticipated  by  fifty  years  the  Dred  Scott  opinion;  they 
decided  that  the  negro  was  not  a  citizen;  and  Judge  Burnet  tells 


22'Rlack,  The  Story  of  Ohio,  157. 
224Burnet,  Notes,  362. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  Ill 

us  that  it  was  understood  by  this  body  of  delegates  that  "people  of 
color  were  not  represented";  and  that  since  "free  whites  alone" 
were  represented  "people  of  color  were  not  considered  as  parties" 
to  the  government  then  being  established,  and  "should  have  no 
part  in  its  administration."2' 

After  this  convention  anti-slavery  sentiment  gained  rapid  head 
way.     Black  and  others  tell  us  that  soon  Ohio  became  solidly  op 
posed  to  slaver}^  "for  even  the  element  which  the  State  had  drawn 
from  the  South  by  no  means  arrayed  themselves  against  emanci 
pation.""      So,  with  King,  we  readily  agree  that  the  State  solidly 
withstood  every  attempt  to  qualify  or  suspend  the  anti-slavery  ar 
ticle  in  the   Ordinance  organizing  the   Territorial  government.227 
Let  us  now  briefly  inquire  into  the  causes  which  led  to  the  posi 
tion  on  slavery  thus  taken  by  the  Ohio  people.     Why  was  it  that 
her  early  settlers,  during  her  Northwest  Territorial  period,  steadily 
opposed  slavery,  while  the  settlers  in  the  French  and  other  neigh 
borhoods  were  at  first  favorable  to  a  continuance  of  slavery?     To 
my  mind  the  answer  is  by  no  means  difficult.    In  her  pioneer  days 
the  Ohio  part  of  the  Northwest  was  without  markets.    Burnet  says 
this  was  the  case  as  late  as  1802.228    Her  soil  was  rich,  but  in  its  lati 
tude   and   primitive   condition   entirely   unsuited   to   slave   labor. 
Doyle,  Fellow  in  All  Souls  College,  Oxford,  England,  writing  in 
1882,  says,  "The  utility  of  a  slave  is  that  of  a  machine.    When  once 
he  has  been  trained  to  any  special  kind  of  industry,  no  attempt  to 
enlarge  his  sphere  of  activity  can  be  attended  with  profit.     The 
time  given  to  the  new  acquisition  is  so  much  waste,  and  his  mental 
incapacity  and  absence  of  any  moral  interest  in  his  work  almost 
necessarily  limit  him  to  a  single  task.    Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
many  attempts  to  develop  various  forms  of  production  in  the  South 
ern  colonies  all  failed.    Maryland  and  Virginia  grew  only  tobacco, 
South  Carolina  grew  mainly  rice."25      Under  existing  conditions 
the  products  of  slave  labor  could  not  be  grown  in  the  Ohio  section 
of  the  Northwest.    The  white  settlers  frequently  struggled  for  their 
own  sustenance.     "Food,"  King  tells  us,  "rather  than  shelter,  was 


223Notes,  355. 

226Black,  The  Story  of  Ohio,  214. 

227King,  History  of  Ohio,  364. 

^Notes,  329. 

229English  Colonies  in  America,  387-8. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

the  severest  want  of  the  pioneer."230  Bread  and  salt  were  scarcest 
of  all.231  When  the  products  of  the  field  and  wild  game  supplied 
these  primary  wants  the  surplus  production,  long  after  the  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  prevailed,  was  dead  waste.  There  were  no  markets. 
In  that  portion  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  where  we  have  seen  that 
slavery  survived  longest,  the  proximity  of  Canada  and  the  better 
transportation  facilities  gave  an  outlet  for  some  of  the  surplus  pro 
duction.  These  slaveholders  in  the  Detroit  (now  in  Michigan)  and 
others  of  the  western  and  northern  settlements  of  the  Northwest 
were  farmers.  They  had  not  come  unaided  and  without  money  to 
struggle  with  the  virgin  wilds.  As  Moore  tells  us,  they  had  been 
aided  by  "liberal  subsidies  in  farm  implements."282  They  had  ex 
cellent  servants,  we  are  told;  they  used  antiquated  methods  of  ag 
riculture,  yet  they  obtained  a  big  price  for  their  products.233  No 
doubt  the  immense  fur  trade  carried  on  in  this  region  had  much  to 
do  with  the  demand  for  farm  products.  NOT  was  this  all  that  put 
Ohio  at  a  disadvantage.  "Besides  their  land-locked  isolation,  the 
pioneers,  in  clearing  the  forest  and  in  turning  up  the  rich  mould 
of  their  cornfields,  encountered  a  far  more  destroying  adversity  in 
the  ague  and  violent  biliary  disorders,  with  which  the  soil  was  in 
fected."2'  So  both  climate  and  market  conditions  made  the  slave 
a  burden.  Very  many  Southerners  from  Virginia,  Kentucky, 
Maryland,  or  now  and  then  to  the  further  south,  removed  with 
their  negroes  to  the  Northwest  Territory.  The  historian  Howe 
tells  us  that  one  of  the  early  pioneers  sent  his  son  to  winter  in  the 
Territory  with  a  dozen  negroes  who  were  sent  from  Kentucky,  and 
that  it  was  with  difficulty  that  the  negroes  were  kept  from  freez 
ing.235  This  shows  that  even  the  rude  accommodations  of  the  early 
days  made  slavery  undesirable.  Having  found  them  unprofitable 
at  home,  or  soon  so  discovering  on  arriving  in  the  Territory,  many 
of  these  Southern  men  manumitted  their  slaves.  Their  numbers 
were  increased  by  slaves  who  ran  away  from  the  South.  As  a  re 
sult  of  both  these  in  the  first  years  of  the  young  State,  she  found 


^History  of  Ohio,  298. 

231Ib.,  299. 

232Chas.  Moore,  The  Northwest  Under  Three  Flags.  82. 

233Burnet,  Notes,  282,  n.  et  scq. 

234King,  History  of  Ohio.  308. 

235Howe,  Century  Ed.  History  of  Ohio,  Vol.  III.,  166. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  113 

herself  beset  by  a  shiftless,  stealing,  plundering  negro  element. 
Something  was  necessary  to  protect  the  whites.  Harsh  laws 
against  free  negroes  were  enacted,  and  "expulsion  under  these  laws 
was  cruelly  enforced."22  King  and  other  authorities  who  speak  on 
this  point,  say  these  negroes  were  without  "fitness  or  capacity  to  pro 
vide  for  themselves." 

Yet  with  this  example  in  their  midst,  the  abolition  element  in  the 
Xorth  who  were  crying  for  unconditional  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  in  the  Southern  States,  and  who  were  teaching  Southern 
slaves  to  demand  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation, 
found  some  of  their  warmest  adherents  in  Ohio.  They  refused  to 
see  that  if  Ohio's  peace,  happiness,  and  the  security  of  her  women 
and  children  were  threatened  and  endangered  by  the  presence  of 
the  comparatively  few  negroes  whom  she  found  within  her  borders, 
that  the  danger  in  the  more  densely  colored  sections  throughout  the 
South  would  have  been  infinitely  more  distressing.  The  Ohio  ne 
groes  were  not  unlike  other  slaves  or  free  negroes  throughout  the 
South.  They  were,  as  a  whole,  "without  fitness  or  capacity  to  pro 
vide  for  themselves."  This  was  pre-eminently  true  of  the  Southern 
negro  at  the  inception  and  during  the  time  Northern  men  abused 
the  Southern  slave-owner,  and  insisted  on  immediate  and  uncon 
ditional  emancipation.  It  was  in  part  to  prevent  the  dire  calamity 
from  which  Ohio  shrank  that  killed  the  emancipation  sentiment 
which  early  and  for  years  flourished  in  the  South. 

Though  he  did  not  profit  by  the  lesson,  yet  the  experience  of  the 
uncompromising  abolitionist,  Gerrit  Smith,  attested  the  incapa 
city,  unfitness,  and  unwillingness  of  the  Southern  negro  to  provide 
for  himself.  Smith  proved  the  correctness  of  the  slaveholder's  con 
tention  when  he  failed  to  induce  the  negro  to  make  an  effort  at  self- 
providence.  He  offered  thousands  of  acres  of  farming  lands, 
situated  in  Xew  York,  to  any  negroes,  free  or  runaway  slaves,  who 
would  accept  and  live  upon  them.  John  Brown,  afterward  of  Har 
per's  Ferry  notoriety,  went  into  the  community  to  assist  and  teach 
any  who  might  take  advantage  of  the  offer.237  The  scheme  was  a 
failure ;  the  negro  of  that  day  "had  neither  the  fitness  nor  capacity 
to  provide  for  himself."  Nor  was  the  experiment  tried  in  America 


Diving,  History  of  Ohio,  edited  by  Schudder,  297. 
23TFrothinghain,  Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  450. 
8 


NORTPIERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

only.  In  1787  the  English  Government  settled  several  hundred  ex- 
American  slaves,  who  had  attached  themselves  to  their  army  during 
the  Revolution,  at  Sierra  Leone,  situated  on  the  west  coast  of  Africa. 
Free  negroes  and  negroes  taken  from  captured  slavers,  "liberated  by 
the  mixed  commission  courts,"  had  been  added  until,  in  1850,  the 
population  was  55,500,  one  hundred  only  of  whom  were  whites.  Of 
this  experiment  J.  Smith  Homans,  corresponding  secretary  Cham 
ber  of  Commerce,  New  York  State,  in  1858,  said,  "Great  efforts 
have  been  made  to  introduce  order  and  industrial  habits  among 
these  persons.  We  are  sorry,"  continues  this  New  York  authority, 
"however,  to  be  obliged  to  add  that  these  efforts,  though  prosecuted 
at  an  enormous  expense  of  blood  and  treasure,  have  been  'signally 
unsuccessful."238 

Disregarding  these  important  lessons,  the  abolitionists  plunged 
boldly  into  the  heart  of  the  South,  and  declaimed  for  "immediate 
and  unconditional  emancipation  in  the  midst  of  slave  States" ;  and 
as  I  have  elsewhere  shown,  began  to  scatter  seeds  of  discontent 
among  the  slaves  themselves.  This  attack  upon  the  slave  States 
themselves  began  in  the  early  days  of  the  States  formed  from  the 
Northwest  Territory  and  spread  until,  in  King's  own  words,  "during 
the  five  years  preceding  1840  .  .  .  numbers  [of  slaves]  were  abducted 
from  the  slave  States  and  concealed  or  smuggled  by  the  'under 
ground  railroad7  into  Canada.  The  abolitionists,"  he  adds,  "as  they 
were  indiscriminately  called,  had  become  fanatical  and  lawless  in 
their  delirium  of  conscience.  .  .  ."" 

The  correctness  of  these  conclusions  concerning  the  anti-slavery 
growth  in  Ohio  and  the  causes  which  led  to  early  anti-slavery  en 
actments,  is  more  obvious  when  we  turn  to  the  civil  and  industrial 
history  of  slavery  to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi,  which  will  also  help 
to  account  for  its  origin  in  the  Northwest  Territory.  In  the  days 
of  its  early  settlement  all  the  upper  portion  of  the  Mississippi  val 
ley  was  called  Illinois.  We  have  seen  something  of  the  slave  legis 
lative  history  in  that  portion  of  it  west  of  Ohio  and  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  which  was  settled  by  the  French  in  1699.  The  slave 
had  gone  before  the  first  permanent  settlers.  La  Salle  was  accom 
panied  by  a  negro  slave  when  murdered  in  March,  1687.  La  Salle 


238Commerce  and  Commercial  Nav.    (Harpers,  1858),  1777. 
239History  of  Ohio,  365. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  115 

had  built  a  French  fort  in  Illinois  in  1678-?80  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  on  the  fur  trade,  and  had  geen  granted  "the  monopoly  of 
the  lake  trade."2'  Further  down  the  valley,  and  at  Kaskaskia,  and 
at  the  settlements  on  the  river  above  where  Memphis  now  is,  and  at 
settlements  in  what  is  now  Missouri,  colonies  of  French,  who  were 
the  pioneers  of  that  section,  were  planned  about  1720.  Most  of  these 
emigrants  were  from  Canada,  These  "many"  French  families  who 
settled  this  region  were  not  independent  frontiersmen  who  set  out 
practically  unaided  to  battle  with  the  wild's  and  to  contend  with 
the  Indians.  Like  the  early  English,  colonies,  they  were  under  a 
kind  of  proprietary  leadership,  and  were  either  planted  by  private 
capitalists,  who  expected  returns  on  the  investment,  or  encouraged 
and  assisted  by  government  officials  who  expected  to  extend  their 
empire.  The  emigrants  who  first  broke  the  virgin  prairies  in  what 
is  now  Missouri  were  under  the  lead  of  Renaud.  These  pioneers 
generally  devoted  themselves  to  farming.241  They  had  slaves,  but 
these  negroes  had  been  "granted  to  them  by  Bienville"  for  the  express 
purpose  of  cultivating  the  lands.242  Bienville  was  a  French  official,  in 
influence  with  his  government,  and  with  unlimited  capital  at  his 
disposal.  These  emigrants  had  come  out  at  the  instance  of  Sieur 
Renaud,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  company,  who  was  speculating 
in  the  new  lands.  Both  he  and  the  several  settlers  had  received 
liberal  grants  of  land  from  the  French  authority,  and  Carr  tells  us 
that  these  were  the  first  land  grants  in  the  present  State  of  Mis 
souri.243 

To  the  north  of  these  emigrants  were  the  settlements  in  their 
Canadian  home,  to  the  south  was  New  Orleans,  with  its  market  and 
demand  for  a  variety  of  products.  The  Mississippi  was  utilized  for 
transportation,  not  alone  by  these  settlers,  but  by  those  to  the  east  of 
the  river  who  had  settled  along  the  Illinois  river  in  the  present 
State  of  Illinois.  Like  their  Southern  kinsmen,  these  found  a  mar 
ket  down  the  river;  and  so  all  the  colonies  planted  in  Illinois,  as 
all  this  region  was  then  called,  grew  "steadily  in  population  and 
prosperity.  Besides  the  fur  trade,  which  [early]  extended  some 


2*°Carr,  History  of  Missouri,    13. 

241Carr,  Missouri,  24. 

242Ib. 

2«History  of  Missouri,  24. 


110  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

three  or  four  hundred  leagues  up  the  Missouri,  and  the  lead  mines 
of  the  Meremac  [to  the  southwest  of  the  present  St.  Louis],  from 
which  the  yield  was  practically  unlimited,  the  agricultural  products 
of  the  district  began  to  assume  important  proportions.  From  the 
first  arrival  of  the  French  in  this  quarter  they  had  given  more  or 
less  of  their  attention  to  agriculture  .  .  ."2"  The  main  products 
were  wheat  and  Indian  corn,  but  every  year,  "in  the  latter  part  of 
December,"  there  were  shipped  from  the  several  settlements  in  all 
this  Illinois  country  "boats  loaded  with  'flour,  corn,  bacon,  hams, 
both  of  bear  and  hogs,  corned  pork,  and  wild  beef,  myrtle  and  bees 
wax,  cotton,  tallow,  leather,  tobacco,  lead,  copper,  buft'alo  wool, 
venison,  poultry,  bear's  grease,  oil,  skins,  fowls,  hides,  beer,  and 
wine/  *  Hence,  there  was  a  demand  for  the  products  of  slave 
labor.  But  the  slaves  were  not  so  much  the  demand  of  the  settlers 
as  they  were  the  result  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  proprietary 
or  speculative  company  to  make  their  new  lands  and  new  invest 
ments  produce  a  return.  This  Mississippi  Company,  as  it  was 
called,  was  in  control  of  this  region  for  fourteen  years.  During  this 
time  they  'sent  out  seven  thousand  white  colonists,  to  whom 
they  gave  two  thousand  negro  slaves.  They  surrendered  their  char 
ter  to  the  King  of  France  in  1731,240  who  continued  to  encourage 
slavery  until  November,  1762,  when  Spain  became  owner  of  all  the 
French  territory  in  America.  In  1763,  at  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  Eng 
land  got  all  of  the  Louisiana  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi  river. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  greater  numl>er  of  the  early  colonies  wrere  in 
what,  is  now  Illinois;  so  this  transfer  left  Spain  with  but  891  in 
habitants  in  upper  Louisiana,  and  to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi 
river.  Many  of  these  were  in  that  section  now  embraced  in  Mis 
souri.  Life  with  the  colonists  went  pretty  much  as  before.  A  few 
families  moved  to  the  west  of  the  river  and  out  of  English  juris 
diction,247  and  "by  far  the  greater  number"  engaged  in  agriculture. 
So  that  the  trade  with  New  Orleans  continued  to  increase  until  in 
1787,  about  the  time  the  Ohio  Company  was  driving  its  bargain 
with  Congress  for  the  purchase  of  land  in  the  Northwest  Territory, 


244 1  ix,  26. 

243Ib.,  27. 
24r-Ib..  29. 
2*7Ib.,  24. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  117 

at  one  time  ten  boats  arrived  in  the  Illinois  country  from  New  Or 
leans.248    For  the  times  this  indicates  an  immense  trade. 

The  proximity  and  hostility  of  the  English  alarmed  Spain  for  the 
safety  of  her  American  possessions.  So,  while  Congress  was  nomi 
nally  selling  the  lands  in  the  Northwest  Territory  to  New  England 
speculators,  Spain  was  endeavoring  to  strengthen  her  Louisiana 
claims  by  holding  out  inducements  to  the  American  citizen  to  set 
tle  in  her  domain.  These  propositions  were  especially  attractive  to 
many  citizens  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Virginia.  Just  at  the 
time  the  Southerners  found  that  they  could  not  carry  their  slaves 
to  the  Northwest  Territory,  Spain  began  to  grant  to  those  who 
would  settle  on  her  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  farm's  of  eight 
hundred  acres  for  about  fifty  dollars  for  the  entire  tract.249  Even 
this  "payment  was  not  necessary  to  give  possession" ;  and  since 
"there  was  practically  no  such  thing  in  the  province  as  taxation,"2" 
and  since  religious  freedom  was  granted  and  other  inducements 
held  out,  we  can  readily  understand  how  a  slaveholder  could  afford 
to  move  into  a  rich  farming  country,  and  especially  one  with  an  es 
tablished  market.  So,  while  the  New  Englander  and  his  neighbor 
were  buying  a  home  in  the  wilds  of  Ohio  and  struggling  with  the 
miasma  of  her  mold,  their  Southern  neighbors  were  finding  upon 
the  rich  plains  of  Missouri  homes  for  the  asking,  and  an  established 
market  for  the  products  of  their  hands  or  those  of  their  slaves. 
Twelve  settlements,  including  St.  Louis,  St.  Charles,  Little  Meadow, 
New  Madrid,  St.  Genevieve,  and  others  in  the  Missouri  neighborhood 
in  Upper  Louisiana  for  the  years  1799,  furnish  a  showing  of  pro 
ducts  which  speak  much  of  the  market  advantages  which  South 
erners  found  as  they  moved  westward.  In  that  year  we  find  these 
twelve  settlements  supplying  the  market  with  85,534  bushels  of 
corn,  88,349  bushels  of  wheat,  28,667  pounds  of  tobacco,  170,000 
pounds  of  lead,  and  1,754  packages  of  shaved  skins  of  100  pound* 
each,  "horned  cattle"  7,980,  horses  1,763,  besides  flour  and  other 
products.  Much  trade  went  to  Canada  even  from  this  section,  es 
pecially  all  the  finer  furs,  because  there  they  brought  a  better  price 
;han  in  New  Orleans.251  The  new  home  already  had  a  system  of 


.,  58. 
~  'Ib. 
251  Am.  State  Papers:  Misc..  Vol.  I.,  383. 


118  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

easy  and  indolent  .slavery  of  negroes  which  had  been  tided  over  the 
critical  period  in  the  history  of  the  country  by  lavish  expenditure 
of  the  fortunes  of  those  who  had  planted  the  first  colonies,  or  as  in 
the  early  English  colonies,  which  had  not  alone  been  sanctioned, 
but  which  had  been  encouraged  by  both  France  and  Spain  by  sup 
plying  slaves  to  the  settlers. 

Now,  I  submit  that  the  history  of  all  the  Northwest,  like  that  of 
New  England,  shows:  (1)  Each  State  or  Territory  settled  its  own 
slavery  question;  (2)  slavery  is  profitable  only  in  primitive  or  less 
advanced  times  and  in  the  use  of  rude  methods,  and  then  only 
where  there  is  a  market  for  the  products  of  the  institution;  (3)  co 
operation  by  the  North  in  the  enactment  of  the  various  national 
slavery  laws  indicated  not  a  desire  to  increase  slave  territory;  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  from  the  earliest  days  on  down  was  all  the  while — 
the  entire  United  States  considered  as  a  whole — growing.  The 
Northern  cooperation  with  the  South  indicated  a  fairness  of  mind, 
a  keenness  of  penetration,  and  a  profound  understanding  of  the  real 
drift  of  the  slavery  situation,  and  a  wholesome  loyalty  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  Union;  (4)  the  plea  that  "slavery  is  becoming  an 
uneradicable  American  institution"  was  a  false  alarm,  started  about 
1820,  and  which  gathered  emptiness  of  sound  in  the  ratio  that 
slavery  was  disappearing;  and  (5)  a  no  less  important  lesson  is 
that  the  same  causes  which  drove  slavery  from  New  England  and 
all  the  North  were  operating  steadily  in  the  South,  and  in  due 
time,  at  less  cost  of  life  and  treasure*  than  that  of  the  war,  wrould 
have  emancipated  every  Southern  slave.  In  all  new  countries  agri 
culture  and  the  most  simple  of  manufacture  have  been  in  the  van 
guard.  The  negro  slave  was  totally  unsuited  to  a  higher  stage  in 
the  industrial  world.  Northern  historians,  of  whom  Charming  and 
Ehodes  are  eminent  representatives,  tell  us  that  nothing  could  have 
been  more  ruinous  to  the  financial  interests  of  a  country  than  the 
system  of  slavery  as  it  prevailed  during  the  years  immediately 
prior  to  the  Civil  War.  They  are  either  correct  or  incorrect.  If 
correct,  slavery  was  killing  itself;  it  was  limited  by  virtue  of  its  own 
nature.  Such  writers  misunderstand  the  attendant  conditions  of 
Southern  slavery;  but  that  it  was  self -timed  and  must  pass  in  the" 
very  nature  of  the  onward  progress  from  which  no  part  of  our  Avorld 
can  escape,  is  attested  by  the  slave  history,  not  alone  among  English 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  119 

people,  not  alone  among  the  Romans,  but  in  all  the  earth ;  and  that 
the  natural  limit  was  already  being  reached  in  the  South  is  a  cor 
rect  observation  of  many  writers,  and  is  proven  by  the  history  of 
New  England  and  all  the  North,  where  the  American  people  were 
first  forced  to  abandon  the  more  simple  forms  of  industry. 

Mr.  Hinsdale,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  the  University  of  Michigan, 
strongly  anti-slavery  in  his  feelings,  thus  sums  up  the  slavery  con 
quest  in  the  Northwest : 

"In  sixty-two  years  following  the  adoption  of  the  National  Con 
stitution  eighteen  new  States  were  brought  into  the  American 
Union — nine  free  and  nine  slave  States.  .  .  .  The  creation  of  the 
new  free  and  slave  States  was  due  to  causes  far  more  powerful  than 
state-craft.  .  .  .  He  who  considers  all  these  things,  in  connection 
with  the  fact  of  Western  geography,  must  see  that  the  expansion  of 
the  areas  of  freedom  and  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  was  due  to 
natural  causes,  and  particularly  that  the  organization  and  admis 
sion  of  the  States,  according  to  programme  [one  free  and  one  slave] , 
was  so  much  beyond  the  ken  and  power  of  statesmen  as  the  regula 
tion  of  the  tides  and  eclipses  is  beyond  the  power  of  natural  philo 
sophers."252 


252Old  Northwest  (Rev.  Ed.),  356,  357. 


VII. 
THE  AMERICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 

One  of  the  picas— the  third  under  my  classification— set  forth  in 
opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the  restrictive  addendum  to  the  Missouri 
admission  bill,  was  that  it  would  re-establish  and  increase  the  im 
portation  of  African  negroes.'  To  appreciate  the  true  merits  of  the 
plea  requires  a  brief  examination  of  the  entire  slave  import  trade. 

The  charge  that  the  South  desired  to  encourage  or  to  carry  on  the 
importing  of  African  slaves  is  unjust.  The  Southern  people  were 
not— never  had  been— importers  of  slaves.  Of  course,  there  were 
a  few  individual  exceptions  just  as  in  the  North  there  were  indi 
vidual  exceptions  to  the  later  prevailing  slavery  sentiment.  In  the 
colonial  days  all  the  southern  colonies  would  have  stopped  the  im 
portation  of  slaves  had  they  not  been  prevented  by  England.  Eng 
land,  at  the  time  the  American  colonies  were  under  her  jurisdic 
tion,  was  the  largest  importer  of  and  dealer  in  African  slaves  in 
the  world.  Her  mercantile  interests  demanded  a  market,  and  hence 
she  kept  her  slavers  busy  pouring  negroes  into  the  southern  colonies 
in  America.  By  the  time  these  colonies  had  reached  a  period  where 
they  were  free  to  act  and  able  to  act,  slaves  had  become  so  numer 
ous  that  the  Southerner  honestly  and  rightly  feared  immediate  and 
unconditional  emancipation.  All  was  done  that  wisdom  and  safety 
indicated;  importations  were  forbidden  and  plans  for  emancipation 
were  inaugurated.  On  the  other  hand,  Northern  citizens  gradually 
became  the  slave  monarchs  of  the  world.  England  came  to  see  the 
sin  of  stealing  human  beings  for  slavery,  and  converted  her  slavers 
into  sentinels  of  protection.  New  Englanders  grew  bold  in  the 
trade.  With  one  hand  the  North  gathered  slaves  from  Africa  or 
elsewhere  and  with  the  other  she  encouraged  slave-uprisings,  deser 
tions,  and  made  life  and  personal  safety  in  the  South  just  as  inse 
cure  as  possible;  and  all  the  while  called  loudly  for  "immediate 
emancipation  in  the  midst  of  slave  States,"  as  Mr.  Blair,  a  mem 
ber  of  Lincoln's  cabinet,  and  many  others  all  the  years  before  him 
frequently  declared. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  121 

What  is  the  history  of  the  American  slave  trade  ?  Savagery,  bar 
barism,  heathendom, — none  furnish  so  dark,  so  bloody,  so  sicken 
ing,  so  blighting  a  page.  The  story  fills  volumes,  yet  my  time  and 
purpose  allow  me  to  stop  to  see  the  merest  outline.  Brief  as  it 
must  be,  it  will  do  much  to  help  us  to  interpret  the  bitterness  with 
which  the  professions  of  Northern  interest  in  the  slave  per  ipse  were 
hurled  back  into  the  face  of  those  who  made  them. 

The  early  landing  of  a  cargo  of  twenty  slaves  at  the  English 
colony  of  Jamestown,  in  what  is  now  Virginia,  in  August,  1619,"3 
generally  is  said  to  be  the  first  recorded  sale  of  slaves  in  the  present 
limitfe  of  the  United  States.  It  is  almost  certain,  however,  that  the 
Norse  explorers  landed  slaves  on  New  England's  shores  long  before 
the  coming  of  the  little  Jamestown  colony.  The  Spaniards,  too, 
had  owned  and  sold  slaves  in  other  parts  of  America  prior  to  this 
date.  To  the  Spaniards  we  are  indebted  for  the  introduction  of 
negro  slavery  into  the  United  States  in  1526.25*  Negro  slaves  were 
carried  into  Alabama  in  1559  or  1560. 255  Kansas,  I  am  fully  con 
vinced,  found  negro  slaves  bearing  Coronado's  burdens  across  her 
plains  in  1541-742,  nearly  fifty  years  before  the  coming  of  the  Dutch 
Trader  to  Virginia.256  The  cargo  landed  at  Jamestown  was  com 
posed  in  part  only  of  negroes,  and  their  coming  was  entirely  unpre 
meditated  and  absolutely  unknown  to  the  colonists  until  the  little 
armored  ship  had  touched  the  Virginia  shores.  The  vessel  belonged 
to  the  Dutch,  who  were  then  the  greatest  sea  traders  of  the  world. 
We  are  told  that  the  Dutchman  wanted  provisions  in  exchange  for 
his  cargo,  "of  which  the  master  pleaded  his  vessel  was  in  dire  need." 

Much  unnecessary  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the  landing  of  these 
twenty  negro  slaves ;  likewise  much  untruth  is  said  about  this  being 
the  beginning  of  slavery  in  America.  So  far  as  the  question  of  slave- 
holding  by  the  North  or  the  South  is  concerned,  it  is  of  no  practical 
value.  There  were  only  a  few  days  between  this  event  and  the  land 
ing  and  buying  of  slaves  in  what  is  now  called  the  North.  The 


233Or  a  later  date,  as  good  authority  insists  :  the  distinguished  John  Marshall 
says  it  was  in  1621  :  History  American  Colonies  (Philadelphia.  1824),  56. 

254Lowery  (1901),  Spanish  Settlements  in  the  United  States,  165;  Shea.  Xar. 
and  Crit.  History  U.  S.,  238. 

255Lowery,  Spanish  Settlements  in  United  States,  357. 

236Ib.,  329. 


122  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Dutch  introduced  African  slaves  afe  soon  as  they  obtained  a  footing 
on  American  soil.  This  was  in  what  is  now  the  State  of  New  York. 
The  Dutch  Manhattan  Charter  of  Liberties  and  Exemptions  in 
1629  said,  "The  Company  will  use  their  endeavors  to  supply  the 
colonists  with  as  many  blacks  as  they  conveniently  can."  There  is 
no  doubt  that  slavery  existed  in  the  New  England  colonies  before 
this  pledge  to  enslave  human  beings  was  made.  Hence,  the  intro 
duction  of  slaves  and  the  beginning  of  the  slave  trade  had  a  con 
temporaneous  beginning  in  the  colonies  which  first  settled  what  we 
now  call  the  North  and  the  South.  This  is  as  literally  true  as  one 
could  find  in  widely  separated  sections  between  which  there  was  no 
intentional  concert.  Speaking  of  the  introduction  of  slavery,  Bur 
gess,  of  Columbia  University,  New  ,York,  notes  that  it  was  first  le 
galized  by  the  North,  and  then  he  observes  that  "the  impartial  his 
torian  must  place  a  greater  blame  on  the  Northern  colony."21  As 
rapidly  as  settlers  came,  the  institution  of  slavery  spread  until  it 
was  fostered  by  all  the  North;  and,  although  for  some  time  Georgia 
withstood  slavery,  sooner  or  later  the  needs  of  the  Southern  colonies 
made  African  slavery  an  American  institution.  From  the  first  and 
for  many  years  the  New  England  colonies  were  both  slave-owners 
and  slave-traders;  but  when  local  ownership  became  unprofitable, 
and  while  yet  there  was  a  great  profit  from  the  slave  trade  up  to 
1860, — the  Civil  War — the  North  continued  to  be  America's  slave 
carrier  and  importer  of  captured  humanity.  As  early  as  1630  the 
New  England  ship-owners  began  an  increased  activity  in  the  im 
portation  of  negroes  to  America;  but  the  increased  activity  reached 
not  alone  the  American  trade;  many  of  the  chief  slave  ports  of  the 
world  were  supplied  by  Northern  capital  and  men.  The  Desire,  the 
first  American  built  ship,  was  built  at  Marblehead,  Mass.,  in  1636. 
It  at  once  and  for  many  years  engaged  in  selling  negroes  to  and 
from  the  West  Indies.  Much-  information  is  left  us  in  Wintlirop's 
Journal  concerning  her  traffic.  "In  1635  the  whole  number  of 
slaves  imported  into  Virginia  was  but  twenty-six,"  so  the  historian 
Spears  tells  us.  In  scarce  a  year  after  this,  this  one  single  Northern 
ship  had  enslaved  many  times  that  number.  As  we  have  seen,  the 
Southern  ports  in  America  would  have  been  closed  to  the  slave  trade 
but  for  the  fact  that  England  held  them  open  for  the  benefit  of  her 


257The  Middle  Period,  41. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  123 

own  slavers.258  When  finally  the  hold  of  England  was  shaken  from 
America,  Virginia  and  other  Southern  States  forever  closed  their 
ports  to  slave  importation.  In  1778  "Virginia  ordered  the  emanci 
pation  of  every  slave  introduced  from  abroad."21  On  the  17th  day 
of  December,  1792,  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  declared, 
"That  no  persons  shall  henceforth  be  slaves  within  this  common 
wealth,  except  such  as  were  so  on  the  17th  day  of  October,"  1.785, 
"and  the  descendants  of  the  females  of  them."  Section  two  of  the 
act  declared :  "Slaves  which  shall  hereafter  be  brought  into  this 
commonwealth,  and  kept  therein  one  whole  year  together,  or  so  long 
at  different  times  as  shall  amount  to  one  year,  shall  be  free."  Sec 
tion  three  provided  penalties  against  importing  negroes  from  Af 
rica  or  elsewhere,  and  section  four  provided  a  test  oath  for  such 
persons  as  desired  to  become  bona  fide  residents  of  the  State,  requir 
ing  them  to  swear  that  they  carried  with  them  no  recently  imported 
negroes,  and  that  they  were  not  resorting  to  subterfuge  of  residency 
in  order  to  sell  imported  negroes.260  As  late  as  1841,  commenting 
on  a  law  of  Mississippi  passed  in  1833  prohibiting  the  importation 
of  slaves,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  said,  "It  is  an  ab 
solute  and  positive  prohibition,  going  into  full  effect  on  the  1st  day 
of  May,  1833,  and  making  from  that  time  the  introduction  of  slaves 
for  the  purpose  of  sale,  a  direct  violation  of  the  fundamental  law 
of  that  state."*  Again  in  the  same  report  it  is  said,  "In  Mississippi 
a  traffic  in  slaves  existed  which  the  people  of  that  state  desired  to 
stop.  They  declared  that  it  should  stop  after  a  certain  day."  From 
the  lowest  to  the  highest,  the  courts  of  Mississippi  sustained  and  en 
forced  that  law. 

However,  slavery  had  its  hold  on  America — the  whole  of  it  in 
one  form  or  another.  Both  time  and  motives  of  interest  were  neces 
sary  to  its  destruction.  Left  to  herself,  these  would  have  emanci 
pated  the  South's  slaves,  which,  of  course,  would  have  destroyed  her 
interest  in  the  slave  trade,  without  the  cost  of  the  war.  Nor  was 
the  institution  peculiarly  American.  In  the  colonial  period,  and  for 


""Rhodes,  U.  S..  Vol.  I.,  8  ;  Bancroft,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  550  ;  Hil- 
dreth.  History  of  the  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  494. 

"•Bancroft.  History  U.  S..  Vol.  V.,  510. 

^Collection  of  Acts  of  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  196  :  Calandars  Home 
Office  Papers,  1770,  1772,  p.  600  ;  Parton,  Life  of  Jefferson,  138. 

26115  Peters,  U.  S.,  456. 


124  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

many  years  that  followed,  it  was  well-nigh  universal.202  It  was  an 
institution  well-nigh  co-existent  with  man  himself.  At  the  time 
Virginia  was  struggling  with  the  import  question,  the  truth  is  that 
nowhere  was  the  moral  right  of  superiors  to  enslave  inferiors  ques 
tioned.  On  this  point  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  once 
said,  "The  African  slave  trade  is  a  trade  which  has  been  authorized 
and  protected  by  the  laws  of  all  commercial  nations;  it  cannot, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  contrary  to  the  laws  of  nations."26  All 
classes  everywhere  acted  from  motives  of  purely  financial  interests. 
This  is  true  of  our  Northern  brethren;  they  had  not  reached  any 
higher  moral  status.  "Even  that  law  of  Massachusetts  in  1641,  so 
often  quoted  to  prove  that  the  colonists  there  were  opposed  to  hu 
man  slavery,  proves,  in  fact,  that  voluntary  slavery  was  common. 
It  says,  'There  shall  never  be  any  bond  slavery  among  us,  unless  it 
be  lawful  captives,  taken  in  just  wars  or  [such]  as  [shall]  willingly 
sell  themselves/  y-  This  is  virtually  the  moral  code  of  slavery  in 
heathendom.  It  shows  that  with  these  colonists  slavery  was  not  re 
garded  as  dishonorable.  Nowhere  did  the  right  or  wrong  of  the 
matter  dictate  the  action.  "It  is.  said  to  be  a  tradition  in  an  hon 
orable  Massachusetts  family  that  an  ancestor,  a  respected  minister, 
needing  a  servant,  sent  a  hogshead  of  rum  to  the  West  Coast  [of 
Africa]  and  had  it  exchanged  there  for  a  kidnapped  negro,  whom 
he  made  his  chattel,  while  neither  his  parishioners  nor  the  com 
munity  at  large  thought  the  proceeding  objectionable,  or  even  ec 
centric."294 

Henry  Wilson  has  labored  to  picture  the  local  exchange  of  slaves 
on  Southern  soil.  But  the  real  horror  of  the  evil  is  seen  in  the 
slave  ships  engaged  in  the  import  trade.  The  extent  of  the  slave 
trade  outside  of  America,  the  greatest  bulk  of  which  never  touched 
the  American  shores,  is  most  appalling.  Negro  slavery  in  the  South 
ern  States  furnishes  nothing  that  will  begin  to  compare  with  the 
brutality,  the  fiendishness,  and  the  widespread  devastation,  its 
pursuit  brought.  It  lasted  to  the  Civil  War,— but  the  slave  markets 
of  the  United  States  were  by  no  means  essential  to  its  existence.  I 
pause  to  call  attention  to  a  few  instances,  which  show  its  brutality 


202Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages,  Vol.  I.,  106. 

aHIO  Wheaton,  66. 

204Hosmer,  A  Short  History  of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  162. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  125 

and  misery.  These  are  not  isolated  facts,  not  exceptions,  but  true 
examples  of  what  was  seen  on  the  greater  number  of  slavers.  The 
picture  varied  only  in  the  bloody  hue  its  ill-luck  or  fortune  caused 
it  to  take. 

"It  is  a  most  interesting  fact  that  while  the  slave  trade  developed 
vikings  w^hen  it  was  a  legal  and  reputable  traffic,  it  developed  a 
race  void  of  every  manly  instinct  when,  it  became  unlawful.  As  il 
lustrating  this  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  nineteenth  century 
the  slavers  dealt  in  children  as  far  as  possible.  Children  did  not 
bring  as  large  a  price  as  field  hands,  of  course,  but  they  cowered 
under  torture,  and  there  was  no  fear  of  their  rising  against  the 
crew."2C  These  children  were  tortured,  were  compelled  to  eat,  were 
compelled  to  dance,  were  compelled  to  sing,  under  the  lash ;  or  beaten 
to  death  and  thrown  into  the  sea  as  food  for  the  sharks.  In  one 
instance  a  two-year-old  child  was  beaten  into  a  lifeless  state,  and  its 
mother  was  compelled  to  throw  it  into  the  sea. 

In  1844  an  American  vessel  was  making  a  voyage  with  five  hun 
dred  and  thirty  adult  slaves  in  her  holds.  An  insurrection  had  been 
suppressed,  but  to  inspire  terror  "forty-six  men  and  one  woman 
were  hanged  and  shot  to  death."  They  were  manacled  two  and  two. 
About  twelve  who  were  chained  by  the  leg  to  a  fellow,  were  drawn 
by  the  neck  clear  of  the  deck,  "and  [each]  his  leg  laid  across  the 
rail  and  chopped  off  to  save  the  irons  and  release  him  from  his  com 
panions.  .  .  .  The  bleeding  negro  was  then  drawn  up,  shot  in  the 
breast,  and  thrown  overboard  .  .  .,"  and  "all  kind's  of  sport  was 
made  of  the  business."2'  On  another  occasion  a  drunken  crew,  with 
four  hundred  slaves  crowded  into  their  vessel,  forgot  to  secure  a 
fresh  supply  of  water,  and  did  not  realize  the  mistake  until  far  out 
at  sea.  The  physician  of  the  ship  tells  us  that  they  "were  drawing 
from  the  last  casks  before  this  discovery  was  made,"  and  that  the 
captain  made  him  "calculate  how  long  it  would  sustain  the  crew 
and  cargo"  of  slaves.  It  was  decided  that  the  slaves  were  each  to 
have  "half  a  gill  and  the  crew  a  gill  each  day.  Then  began  a  tor 
ture  worse  than  death  to  the  blacks.  Penned  in  their  close  dun 
geons,  to  the  number  of  nearly  five  hundred,  they  suffered  continual 
torment.  Our  crew  and  drivers  were  unwilling  to  allow  even  the 


20:iSpears,  Am.  Slave  Trade,  TO. 

2(!6.7ohn  R.  Spears,  Am.  Slave  Trade,  80. 


126  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

half  gill  per  diem.  .  .  .  Instead  of  lowering  buckets,  it  became  neces 
sary  to  pour  the  water  into  half-pint  measures.  Those  furthest 
from  the  gratings  never  got  a  drop.  .  .  .  Death  followed  so  fast  that 
in  a  short  time  at  leafet  a  hundred  men  and  women  were  shackled 
to  dead  partners."  In  a  few  days  after  this  the  captain  and  "four 
of  the  men  were  taken  suddenly  ill  with  a  disease  that  baffled  my 
medical  knowledge.  Their  tongues  swelled  and  grew  black;  their 
flesh  grew  yellow,  and  in  six  hours  they  were  dead."  All  the  men 
but  three  and  the  physician  finally  were  dead,  when  he  says  that  he 
"began  to  notice  a  strange  fetid  smell  pervading  the  vessel,  and  a 
low  heavy  fog  on  deck,  almost  like  steam.  .  .  .  our  rotting  negroes 
under  the  hatches  had  generated  the  plague,  and  it  was  a  malaria 
or  death-mist  that  I  saw  rising."*  In  connection  with  this  it  is 
interesting  to  remember  that  it  is  declared  by  good  authority  that 
the  yellow  fever  "was  generated  from  dead  slaves  in  the  slavers  at 
Eio  de  Janeiro  in  1849."  "I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord." 

Picture  after  picture  of  these  revolting  cruelties  might  be  given,, 
but  we  spare  the  reader,  and  refer  him  to  the  works  of  Spears,  George 
Bancroft,  and  to  the  many  instances  fully  given  in  the  official  re 
ports  of  the  various  United  States  courts.  Who  is  responsible  for 
all  this  dire  inhumanity  ?  Who  prosecuted  this  terrible  traffic  ?  To 
whom  are  we  to  look  for  the  guilty  party?  Spears  truthfully  says 
that  the  South  received  "these  stolen  goods,"  but  he,  as  is  generally 
done,  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  greater  majority  of  negroes  stolen 
and  enslaved  by  Northern  slavers  were  not  sold,  directly  or  indi 
rectly,  to  Southern  slave-owners.  Certainly,  then,  there  was  an 
enormous  traffic  in  slaves  with  which  the  South  had  nothing  what 
ever  to  do.  More  men,  women,  and  children  were  enslaved  to  bru 
tal  masters  in  this  non-Southern  traffic  than  the  whole  number  of 
imported  slaves  held  by  Southern  masters.  The  South  i's  held  re 
sponsible  for  what  her  slave  masters  did;  if  men  of  wealth  and 
often  public  stations  in  life  did  greater  wrongs,  for  the  correction  of 
which  there  was  legal  power  in  each  Northern  State,  is  there  any 
reason  why  that  section  should  not  be  in  the  same  way  charged  with 
the  guilt?  Then,  who  prosecuted  the  American  Slave  Trade? 

"In  America  the  New.  England  colonies  took  the  lead  in  the  slave 
trade.  Barefooted  boys  waded  through  the  snow  to  find  berths  in 


287Ib.,  75. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  127 

the  forecastles  of  the  colony  ships,  and,  hard  as  sailor's  life  was 
then,  they  found  more  comfort  afloat  than  on  the  farms  they  left 
behind."2*  In  1713  Newport,  Ehode  Island,  was  the  chief  slave 
ship  port  in  America.  Geo.  H.  Moore,  in  his  history  of  slavery  in 
Massachusetts,  says :  "At  the  very  birth  of  foreign  commerce  from 
New  England  ports  the  African  slave  trade  became  a  regular  busi 
ness."  To  such  an  extent  did  the  slave  trade  of  Newport  grow,  that 
Dr.  Field,  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  suggests  that  it  "might  have 
been  called  Slave-port,  from  the  number  of  cargoes  of  slaves  that 
were  landed  there  from  Africa/'26 

From  the  statements  made  in  most  of  our  histories,  one  might 
think  that  the  early  slaves  of  the  North  were  all  freed  and  well 
cared  for  by  the  former  master.  Elsewhere  I  have  shown  that  in 
few  or  no  cases  did  emancipation  come  to  the  slaves  living  at  the 
passage  of  the  several  emancipation  laws.  How  many  negroes  in 
the  North  were  left  there  and  made  to  enjoy  freedom?  Thousands 
were  sold;  some  into  the  fields  of  the  South,  but  the  greater  num 
ber  sent  elsewhere  when  it  began  to  be  know^n  that  slavery  would 
not  succeed  on  Northern  soil.270  They  were  perhaps  carried  off  in 
ships'  to  the  Madeiras  or  the  Canaries,  which  were  accustomed  to 
touch  Guinea  to  trade  for  negroes  "who  were  carried  generally  to 
Barbadoes,  or  to  the  other  English  islands  of  the  West  Indies."  Nor 
was  their  condition  under  slavery  at  home  such  as  to  inspire  any 
great  love  for  the  masters.  In  the  Eevolutionary  War,  during  the 
march  of  Howe  through  Pennsylvania,  we  are  told  that  the  negro 
slaves  prayed  for  the  success  of  the  British  arms,  believing  that  such 
success  would  bring  liberty.271 

Until  policy  dictated  otherwise,  contrary  to  what  we  are  often 
told,  the  legislatures  of  the  Northern  colonies  encouraged  the  im 
portation  of  slaves.  "The  Massachusetts  statutes  of  1705,  which 
is  curiously  enough  often  quoted  as  showing  that  the  people  there 
were  opposed  to  the  slave  trade,  were  carefully  worded  to  promote 
the  trade.  It  did,  indeed,  lay  a  tax  of  four  pounds  on  each  negro 
imported,  but  a  'drawback'  was  allowed  upon  exportation."  In 


268Ib..  18. 

269Bright  Skies  and  Dark  Shadows,  155. 

^House  Report,  No.  148,  14-15,  37  Cong.,  2  sess. 

^Rhodes,  History  U.  S.,  Vol.  I.,  13  ;  Bancroft,  History  U.  S.,  Vol.  VI.,  180. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

other  words,  the  shrewd  legislators  meant  to  encourage  the  exchange 
of  negro  slaves  by  the  shipper  for  such  commodities  as  the  New 
Englander  had  to  sell,  and  when  this  was  done  the  nominal  import 
tax  was  refunded.  "The  harbors  of  New  England  were  thus  of 
fered  as  a  free  exchange  mart  for  slaves."272  In  1708  the  governor 
of  Rhode  Island  reported  that  between  1698  and  1708  one  hundred 
and  three  vessels  were  built  in  that  State,  all  of  which  went  out  to 
capture,  buy,  or  get  in  any  manner,  African  negroes ;  and,  perhaps 
without  a  single  exception,  these  negroes  were  sold  to  other  places 
than  the  American  colonies.  In  1770  Rhode  Island  had  yet  one 
hundred  and  fifty  vessels  engaged  in  the  slave  trade,  and  Spears 
quotes  Hopkins  for  the  assertion  that  "Rhode  Island  has  been  more 
deeply  interested  in  the  slave  trade,  and  has  enslaved  more  Afri 
cans  than  any  other  colony  in  New  England/'273  We  are  told  that 
Hopkins  again  wrote  in  1787:  "This  trade  in  human  specie's  has 
been  the  first  wheel  of  commerce  in  Newport  [R.  I.],  on  which 
every  other  movement  in  business  has  depended.  That  town  has 
built  up,  and  flourished  in  times  past  on  the  slave  trade,  and  by  it 
[the  inhabitants]  have  gotten  most  of  their  wealth  and  riches/7274 

Just  twenty-six  years  after  the  much-told  landing  of  slaves  in 
Virginia,  Boston,  Massachusetts,  furnished  the  first  American,  so 
far  as  history  or  tradition  tells  us,  who  initiated  America's  shame 
ful  inroads  upon  African  homes.  He  assisted  in  an  attack  on  an 
African  negro  village  on  a  Sunday,  and,  without  a  shadow  of  jus 
tification  or  excuse,  slaughtered  with  cannon  and  musket  men, 
women,  and  children,  and  captured  such  as  could  be  secured.  The 
Boston  slave  ship  carried  off  two  of  the  captives  as  its  share  of  the 
glory  !275  In  this  attack,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  fill  the  holds 
of  a  Northern  'slave  ship,  more  innocent  persons  were  murdered  than 
the  whole  number  of  slaves  then  held  by  Virginia  masters.  On  that 
Sabbath  "they  killed  man/'  and  secured  two  as-  a  reward !  It  is 
said  that  after  these  two  slaves  reached  New  England,  and  the  story 
of  the  wholesale  murder  incident  to  their  capture  got  abroad,  that 
they  were  returned :  a  poor  atonement !  About  the  same  time  an- 


=72Spears,  Am.  Slave  Trade,  19. 
"•Ib.,  19. 
W4Ib.,  20. 
275Ib.,  48. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  129 

other  trader  instigated  an  African  King  to  make  war  to  -secure 
slaves.  In  a  three  days'  battle  "4,500  were  slain  on  the  spot."21 
The  nefarious  devices  used  by  Northern  ship-slavers  for  the  cap 
ture  of  negroes,  were  of  a  manner  more  revolting  than  anything 
reported  in  Christian  history.  Of  these  dealers  and  importers, 
Spears  says  that  they  "introduced  what  is  known  to  professional 
thieves  as  the  badger  game,  and  that  they  made  money  out  of  it, 
and  that  the  ship  merchants  and  the  stockholders  in  the  ship  knew 
that  it  was  done  and  willingly  shared  the  profits."27  This  was  not 
a  temporary  trade  limited  to  colonial  days;  it  was  carried  on  by 
Northern  slavers  for  nearly  250  years.  War,  murder,  treachery, 
were  not  only  countenanced,  but  incited  and  aided.  Helpless,  bleed 
ing,  and  manacled  men,  women,  and  children — yes,  shipload  after 
shipload,  year  after  year,  of  children — were  sold  to  planters  in  the 
West  Indies,  Brazil,  or  other  Spanish  possessions,  where  those  who 
sold  and  those  who  enslaved,  and  the  managers  of  and  the  stock 
holders  in  the  ships,  generally  in  some  Northern  home  luxuriously 
reveling  in  their  blood-bought  wealth,  all  knew  that  these  slaves 
would  be  not  only  ill-treated,  but  deliberately  worked  to  death  to 
prevent  the  burden  of  their  decrepit  old  age  resting  upon  the  mas 
ters.278  Private  individuals  alone  did  not  reap  the  profits.  The 
three-pound  tax  on  imported  slaves  laid  by  Rhode  Island  in  1708, 
"was  laid  to  enable  the  Colonial  government  to  obtain  a  share  of  the 
profits  of  the  trade;  the  Newport  streets  were  first  paved  out  of  the 
proceeds  of  that  tax."  In  1703  "close-fi'sted"  Massachusetts  slave 
owners  began  to  "manumit  aged  or  infirm  slaves  to  relieve  the  mas 
ter  from  the  charge  of  supporting  them."27  It  is  interesting  to 
contrast  the  attitude  of  the  South  on  this  point.  In  illustration  I 
quote  from  an  act  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  De 
cember  17,  1792.  Section  thirty-seven  of  the  act  says,  "It  shall  be 
lawful  for  any  person,  by  his  or  her  last  will  and  testament,  or  by 
any  other  instrument  in  writing,  under  his  or  her  hand  and  seal,  .  .  . 
to  emancipate  and  set  free  hi's  or  her  slaves,  or  any  of  them,  who 
shall  thereupon  .  .  .  enjoy  as  full  freedom  as  if  they  had  been  par 
ticularly  named  and  freed  by  this  Act."  In  section  thirty-eight  it 


^Observations  on  Negroes  (Germantown,  1760),  p.  6. 
277Spears.  Am.  Slave  Trade,  50. 
W8lb..  51  :  Alison,  History  Europe,  Vol.  IT.,  498. 
^Spears,  Am.  Slave  Trade,  92. 


130  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

was  "Provided  always,  That  all  slaves  so  set  free,  not  being  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Court  of  sound  mind  and  body,  or  being  above  the 
age  of  forty-five  years,  or  being  males  under  the  age  of  twenty-one, 
or  females  under  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  shall  respectively  be 
supported  and  maintained  by  the  person  so  liberating  them,  or  by 
his  or  her  estate;  and  upon  neglect  or  refusal  to  do  so,  the  Court 
of  the  County  or  Corporation  where  such  neglect  or  refusal  may  be, 
is  hereby  empowered  and  required  upon  application  to  them  made 
to  order  the  sheriff  or  other  officer  to  distrain  and  sell  so  much  of 
the  person's  estate,  as  shall  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose."28  But 
in  New  England  private  and  public  fortunes  were  made  from  the 
slave  traffic,  yet  Northern  masters  turned  out  unsalable  or  aged 
slaves  to  die  on  public  charity  or  in  want ! 

The  social  relations  between  the  two  races  at  the  North  were  on 
no  higher  moral  grounds  than  at  the  South.  The  Massachusetts 
act  of  1705  declared  that  it  "was  'to  better  prevent  spurious  or 
mixt  issue/  It  is  shocking  to  learn  that  the  young  men  of  Puritan 
blood  were  so  fond  of  the  black  brissies,"  says  Mr.  Spears.  Long 
fellow,  in  his  "The  Quadroon  Girl/'  meant  to  point  the  finger  of 
scorn  at  the  Southern  planter ;  but  mutatis  mutandis,  and  the  verses 
are  quite  as  applicable  to  the  poet's  own  New  England  blood.  I 
venture  to  present  the  same  scene  in  New  England : 

The  Slaver  in  the  quiet  bay 

Lay  moored  with  idle  sail; 
He  waited  for  the  fading  day 

And  for  the  evening  gale. 

The  Spinner  now  by  his  paying  loom 

Smoked  thoughtfully  and  slow; 
The  Slaver  turned  from  the  room, 

He  seemed  in  haste  to  go. 

Before  them  with  her  face  upturned, 

In  timid  attitude, 
Like  one  half  curious,  half  amazed, 

A  Quadroon  maiden  stood. 

"  The  soil  is  barren,  the  climate  cold," 

The  thoughtful  Spinner  said; 
Then  looked  upon  the  Sla\7er's  gold, 
And  then  upon  the  maid. 


.  of  Acts  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  1794,  p.  200. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  131 

His  heart  within  him  was  at  strife 

With  such  accursed  gains; 
For  he  knew  whose  passions  gave  her  life, 

Whose  blood  ran  in  her  veins. 

But  the  voice  of  nature  was  too  weak, 

He  took  the  glittering  gold! 
Then  pale  as  death  grew  the  maiden's  cheek, 

Her  hands  as  icy  cold. 

The  Slaver  led  her  from  the  door, 

He  led  her  by  the  hand, 
To  be  his  slave  and  paramour 

In  a  strange  and  distant  land. 

An  ex-Union  officer,  born  in  Ohio  of  negro  parentage,  gives  un 
impeachable  evidence  that  the  morals  of  Northern  white  men  had 
not  improved  with  flight  of  years.  He  sayte,  "It  may  have  been  the 
outcroppings  of  gratitude  to  Federal  victors,  or  reckless  abandon  to 
lust,  but  the  inciting  cause  is  immaterial,  so  long  as  the  shameful 
fact  is  true,  that,  whenever  our  armies  were  quartered  in  the  South, 
the  negro  women  nocked  to  their  camps  for  infamous  riot  with  the 
white  soldiers.  All  occupied  cities,  suburban  rendezvous,  and  rural 
bivouacs,  bore  witness  to  the  mad  havoc  cfaily  wrought  in  black  wo 
manhood  by  our  citizen  soldiery.  We  have  personal  knowledge," 
continues  this  writer,  "of  many  Federal  officers  of  high  station,  and 
some  of  strong  prejudices  against  the  race,  who  openly  kept  negro 
mistresses  in  their  array  quarters ;  nor  do  we  doubt  that  the  present 
lax  morality  everywhere  observable  among  negro  womankind  is 
largely  due  to  the  licentious  freedom  which  the  war  engendered 
among  them.  Slavery  had  its  blighting  evils,  but  also  its  wholesome 
restraints."281 

In  the  census  of  1860,  we  are  told,  "Comparing  the  Northern 
section  with  the  Southern,  a  greater  proportion  of  mulattoes  is 
found  in  the  free  States."282 

To  return  to  the  Massachusetts  enactment.  "The  act  was  really 
designed  to  enable  the  colonies  to  share  in  the  profits  of  the  slave 
trade,  and  to  encourage  slavers  in  making  Boston  a  clearing  house, 


^William   Hannibal   Thomas,    The   American   Negro,   14    (The   Macmillan   Co., 
1901). 

l.  on  Population,  X. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

so  to  speak,  for  the  slave  trade  of  the  whole  continent."283  Con 
cerning  the  laws  relative  to  the  slave  trade  in  New  Jersey,  the  same 
author  says,  "And  all  this  is  to  say,  with  emphasis,  that  the  prohi 
bitive  legislation  of  New  Jersey,  as  of  some  other  communities,  was 
placed  strictly  on  business  considerations.  The  only  question  really 
was,  Which  in  the  end  will  pay  the  best — white  or  black  serv 
ants?"284 

The  prohibitive  legislation  in  Pennsylvania  plainly  says  it  was 
enacted  because  of  fear  of  slave  insurrection.  "It  was  sheer  cow 
ardice  of  conscientious  tyrants  that  animated  those  Pennsylvania 
legislators,"  Spears  adds.  In  the  early  history  of  South  Carolina 
we  find  a  prohibition  from  the  same  motive.  Hence,  that  the  moral 
eide  of  slavery  ever  had  any  weight  in  bettering  the  condition  of 
the  slave  on  the  American  continent,  or  in  suppressing  the  slave 
trade,  is  purely  a  manufactured  claim  invented  by  recent  historians 
to  give  a  semblance  of  sanctity  to  the  greatest  purely  political  war 
of  the  world.  "Not  one  act  passed  by  a  colonial  legislature  showed 
any  appreciation  of  the  intrinsic  evil  in  the  [slave]  trade  or  tended 
to  extirpate  it  from  the  seas — not  one." 

In  1800  Congressman  Brown,  of  Ehode  Island,  stood  in  his  place 
m  the  nation's  legislature,  and  said,  "We  want  money;  we  want 
money;  we  ought,  therefore,  to  use  the  mean's  to  obtain  it.  Why 
should  we  see  Great  Britain  getting  all  the  slave  trade  to  them 
selves — why  not  our  country  be  enriched  by  that  lucrative  traffic  ?"2t 
All  this — and  the  vast  deal  no<t  here  intimated — justified  the  South, 
during  all  the  years  of  the  long  struggle  and  through  all  the  bitter 
debates,  in  her  position :  "Let  him  that  is  guiltless  cast  the  first 
etone."  To  the  historian  of  to-day  the  voice  of  a  loyal  South  im 
plores,  Tell  the  whole  story;  tell  of  the  millions  of  property  stolen 
and  spirited  away  North ;  tell  of  the  hellish  slave  trade  which  filled 
the  places  which  were  thus  made  vacant. 

"Write!  and  toll  of  this  bloody  tale, 

Record  this  dire  eclipse, 
This  day  of  Wrath,  this  Endless  Wail, 

This  dire  Apocalypse."  — Longfellow. 


283Spears,  Am.  Slave  Trade,  93. 
284Ib.,  94. 
J83Ib.,  116. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  133 

The  notorious  abolitionist,  Helper,  whose  writings  were  a  fire- 
orand  of  treachery  and  infamy,  is  said  to  have  been  chiefly  instru 
mental  in  inducing  support  in  Congress  for  a  bill  requiring  all  ne 
groes,  destined  for  the  then  Territory  of  Louisiana,  to  enter  through 
a  port  of  the  United  States  before  landing  in  that  Territory. 
Whatever  the  motive  for  this  law  may  have  been,  at  least  it  fur 
nishes  us  some  valuable  statistics.  This  law  drove  most  of  the 
slaves  bound  for  the  Spanish  plantations  in  the  Louisiana  Territory 
to  enter  at  a  South  Carolina  port,  from  whence  they  could  proceed 
to  Xew  Orleans  and  sell  the  slaves  into  the  interior.  A?  a  result, 
from  1804  to  1807  inclusive,  202  ships  entered  39,075  African 
slaves.  This  was  the  largest  importation  of  slaves  to  America 
during  any  period  of  similar  length  up  to  1860.  But  it  was  only  a 
small  part  of  the  slaves  captured,  handled,  and  sold  mainly  by 
Northern  slavers.  As  importations  to  America  began  to  be  dan 
gerous,  owing  to  the  Federal  prohibition  which  shortly  after  the 
last  above  date  went  into  effect,  the  Northern  slavers,  who,  as  sev 
eral  times  said,  all  the  while  had  sold  a  large  per  cent,  of  their  ne 
groes  out  of  the  colonies  and  later  the  United  States,  increased 
their  traffic  to  the  West  Indie's,  Brazil,  or  elsewhere,  and  sold  their 
captives  to  a  more  brutal  servitude  than  the  worst  example  which 
existed  in  the  South.  The  four  years  of  entry  through  Charleston's 
(  S.  C.)  custom-house  are  significant: 

"These  ships  were  divided  as  follows :  'From  Connecticut,  1 ;  Bos 
ton,  1 ;  Norfolk,  2 ;  Baltimore,  4 ;  Ehode  Island,  59 ;  Charleston, 
61;  Sweden,  1;  France,  3;  Great  Britain,  70.'  There  were  only 
sixty-one  ships  nominally  hailing  from  Northern  ports  engaged  in 
the  trade  [to  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  and  the  South  alone] .  But 
when  one  looks  to  see  who  reaped  the  profits  it  appears  that  of  the 
consignees  of  those  slavers  '88  were  natives  of  Ehode  Island,  13 
of  Charleston,  10  of  France,  and  91  of  Great  Britain.' '-  As  the 
years  went  by  this  small  per  cent,  of  Southerners  engaged  in  the 
slave  trade  fell  off  to  practically  nothing,  France  and  Great  Brit 
ain  became  the  friend  of  the  negro,  while  it  remained  for  the  North 
to  continue  the  trade.  Little  or  no  effort  was  made  in  that  section 
to  execute  the  laws  passed  by  Congress  in  prohibition  of  the  trade. 
The  courts  practically  upheld  the  slavers.  If  one  will  take  the  time 
to  examine  the  reported  cases,  this  fact  will  be  apparent.  A  single 


134  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

slave  voyage,  great  as  was  the  fatality  on  board  slavers,  yielded 
about  $12,000  profit.  In  later  years  long  after  the  trade  had  be 
come  unlawful,  the  few  captures  that  were  made  were  held  in  so 
light  bonds  that  the  bond  could  be  forfeited,  as  was  nearly  always 
done,  and  then  leave  a  handsome  profit  of  several  thousand  dollars. 
Bond  in  the  sum  of  $200,  and  in  a  few  cases  $5,000,  was  required. 
Even  the  latter  sum,  required  only  in  some  cases  in  later  years, 
left  a  clear  profit  of  about  $7,000.  But  the  most  startling  feature 
of  the  judicial  side  is  that  perhaps  80  or  90  per  cent,  of  the  cases 
against  those  who  plied  the  trade,  were  either  dismissed  without  a 
trial,  or  if  tried  found  not  guilty.  This  last  was  not  the  result  of 
insufficient  evidence,  either.'88  And  this  is  the  history  of  slaver 
trials  in  Northern  courts,  too !  In  looking  over  these  judicial  pro 
ceedings,"  it  will  strike  one  that  in  many  of  the  cases  where  the  par 
ties  engaged  in  any  given  voyage  were  acquitted  or  the  case  against 
them  dismissed,  the  ship  itself  was  condemned  and  sold.  The  ex 
planation  is  that  in  cases  against  the  ship  informers  were  paid,  and 
the  successful  prosecutor  received  a  reward,  while  there  was  no  re 
ward  for  informing  against  the  crew  or  the  owner!  Verily,  the 
Yankee  has  always  had  an  eye  open  for  money.  For  money  he 
would  condemn  an  unconscious  ship;  while  the  hand  that  guided 
it,  and  the  conscienceless  brain  that  had  planned  the  voyage,  went 
"scott  free !"  The  Yankee  has  ever  been  a  shrewd  business  man ! 

The  courts  and  their  officers  were  not  alone  particeps  criminis; 
merchants  and  business  men  increased  the  profits  on  many  voyages 
by  combining  captured  or  purchased  negroes  with  the  legitimate 
part  of  the  cargo.  Dr.  W.  E.  B.  Du  Bois,  some  time  fellow  of  Har 
vard  University,  has  given  a  strong  picture  in  this  connection.  He 
says,  "The  fitting  out  of  slavers  became  a  flouri'shing  business  in 
the  United  States,  and  centered  at  New  York  city.  'Few  of  our 
readers/  writes  a  periodical  of  the  day,  'are  aware  of  the  extent  to 
which  this  infernal  traffic  is  carried  on  by  vessels  clearing  from  New 
York  and  in  close  alliance  with  our  legitimate  trade ;  and  that  down 
town  merchants  of  wealth  and  respectability  are  extensively  engaged 
in  buying  and  selling  African  Negroes,  and  have  been,  with  com 
paratively  little  interruption,  for  an  indefinite  number  of  years/  y' 
In  1852'  the  British  consul  reported,  "Almost  all  the  slave  expedi- 

2MDu  Bois,  Suppression  of  the  American  Slave  Trade. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  135 

tions  for  some  time  past  have  been  fitted  out  in  the  United  States, 
chiefly  at  New  York."28  Another  periodical  says,  "  'The  number 
of  persons  engaged  in  the  slave  trade,  and  the  amount  of  capital 
embarked  in  it,  exceed  our  powers  of  calculation.  The  city  of  New 
York  has  been  until  late  [1862]  the  principal  port  of  the  world  for 
this  infamous  commerce;  although  the  cities  of  Portland  and  Boston 
are  only  second  to  her  in  that  distinction.  Slave-dealers  add  largely 
to  the  wealth  of  our  commercial  metropolis ;  they  contribute  liberally 
to  the  treasuries  of  political  organizations,  and  their  bank  accounts 
were  largely  depleted  to  carry  elections  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  Connecticut/  During  the  eighteen  months  of  the  years 
1859-1860  eighty-five  slavers  are  reported  to  have  been  fitted  out  in 
New  York  harbor,  and  these  alone  transported  from  30,000  to  60,- 
000  slaves  annually.  The  United  States  deputy  marshal  of  that  dis 
trict  declared  in  1856  that  the  business  of  fitting  out  slavers  'was 
never  prosecuted  with  greater  energy  than  at  the  present.  The  oc 
casional  interposition  of  the  legal  authorities  exercises  no  apparent 
influence  for  its  suppression,  It  is  seldom  that  one  or  more  vessels 
cannot  be  designated  at  the  wharves,  respecting  which  there  is  evi 
dence  that  she  is  either  in  or  has  been  concerned  in  the  Traffic/ '' 
In  1857,  scarce  three  years  before  the  final  crisis,  England  captured 
twenty-one  slave  ships  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  North,  United 
States  of  America.289 

Most  important  and  most  significant  is  the  fact  that  these  ships 
were  not  engaged  in  trading  their  captured  negroes  to  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  For  twenty  year's  very  few  negroes  had  been 
shipped  from  Africa  to  America.  Fresh  Africans  were  too  easily 
detected;  they  were  semi-wild,  and  knew  nothing  of  the  English 
language.  Even  the  trade  in  the  earlier  years  came  from  Cuba,  or 
some  place  where  the  negro  had  been  enslaved  already,  and  had 
learned  something  of  the  English  language.  March  22,  1862,  Wil 
liam  II.  Seward,  President  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  State,  in  an 
official  communication  to  Lord  Lyons,  of  England,  said,  "On  re 
viewing  the  history  of  that  [the  slave]  trade  during  the  period  which 


287House  Executive  Doc.,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  XII.,  No.  105,  p.  38. 
288Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  178-9  ;  Wilson,  The  Rise  of  the  Slave  Power, 
Vol.  II.,  619. 

289Enc.  Btr.,  Werner's  Ed.,  Slave  Trade,  770. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

has  elapsed  since  the  convention  which  was  entered  into  between  that 
government  [England]  and  our  own  on  the  9th  day  of  August, 
1842,  it  has  been  found  that  during  that  time  no  slaves  have  been 
carried  into  the  territories  of  Great  Britain,  and  with  the  excep 
tion  of  the  case  of  the  bark  'Wanderer/  none  have  been  brought 
into  the  United  States.  But  it  is  equally  certain  that  large  num 
bers  of  African  slaves  have  been  carried  into  the  colonies  of  Spain, 
and  that  this  infamous  traffic  has  been  mainly  carried  on  by  per 
sons  resident  in  other  countries,  including  the  United  States,  and 
under  the  fraudulent  cover  of  the  American  flag."290 

The  North  could  have  stopped  this  trade— .aside  from  Federal 
regulations.  The  States  could  have  prevented  slavers  fitting  out 
in  their  waters.  A  slave  ship  was  easily  identified.  The  destruc 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  South  was  absolutely  not  necessary  to  the  de 
struction  of  the  import  trade.  As  Du  Bois  says,  "thousands  were 
shipped  to  Brazil  and  hundreds  to  the  United  States" ;  and  he  might 
truthfully  have  added,  and  thousands  to  many  other  places  than 
Brazil,  which  made  multiplied  thousands  as  against  hundreds  to 
the  United  States.  The  thing  of  which  the  South  complains  is 
that  the  North  insisted  and  insists  that  the  war  was  necessary  to 
make  the  North  stop  her  own  evils.  The  North  should  first  have 
conquered  herself — she  should  have  stopped  this  daily  destruction 
of  negro  homes;  she  should  have  hushed  the  orphan's  wail,  the 
Widow's  cry— none  of  which  Thayer,  Greely,  Robinson,  Emerson, 
Parker,  Higgins,  Seward,  and  other  leading  Northerners,  seemed 
to  have  heard — they  were  too  near  home.  Such  men  as  these  spent 
millions  magnifying  those  sounds  borne  upon  Southern  breezes. 
Since  1808  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  of 
Congress  passed  pursuant  thereto,  had  forbidden  this  bloody  traffic. 
It  is  not  a  little  wonder  to  some  of  us  that  the  "awakened  con 
science"  of  the  officers  of  and  contributors  to  such  institutions  as 
the  emigrant  aid  companies,  of  which  we  shall  hear  later,  did  not 
spend  a  few  thousands,  at  least,  enforcing  the  organic  laws  of  the 
Union  against  those  of  their  own  household.  Du  Bois  says  that 
the  North  was  the  first  to  hang  a  slave  dealer  and  importer; 
of  course,  Haman  was  hung  by  his  king,  but  the  king  had  sanc 
tioned,  for  money,  Hainan's  crime.  Such  is  the  inconsistency  of 

200Ex.  Doc.  No.  57,  37  Cong.,  2  sess.,  p.  2. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  137 

avaricious  nature!  Even  when  the  notorious  slaver  was  hanged  it 
raised  a  storm  of  indignation  and  popular  protest.  Capt.  Nathan 
Gordon,  a  citizen  of  Maine,  was  captured  on  the  coast  of  Africa 
with  a  slave  ship  from  New  York.  This  was  in  1860.  He  had  on 
board  eight  hundred  negroes  destined  for  some  slave  market.  He 
was  tried  in  a  New  York  Federal  court,  charged  with  piracy  under 
a  law  passed  by  Congress  in  1820.  He  was  convicted,  sentenced, 
and  finally  hanged.  New  York  citizens  made  every  effort  to  save 
him  through  the  courts.  "Nor  was  that  all  that  was  done  to  save 
him.  Threats  were  made  that  a  rescuing  mob  to  storm  the  jail 
would  be  raised — threats  that  were  really  ominous,  for  that  was  a 
day  when  innocent  negroes  were  hanged  to  lamp  posts  by  a  New 
York  mob/7  So  says  Spears.291  And  then  tell  me  that  the  North 
waged  the  Civil  War  because  of  an  awakened  conscience !  It  must 
have  had  a  good  nap  before  the  rude  "awaking,"  since  this  law 
under  which  Gordon  was  executed  had  been  on  the  statute  books 
for  forty  long  years !  No  wonder  the  South  discredited  Northern 
professions  of  interest  for  the  welfare  of  the  negro.  Gordon  was 
hanged  forty  years  too  late. 

Very  much  is  often  said  about  the  coastwise  and  interstate  trade 
in  the  South,  and  the  selling  of  slaves  from  one  master  to  another. 
While  this  custom  was  sometimes  abused,  yet  as  a  matter  of  fact  it 
furni'shed  no  more  instances  of  abuse  and  misuse  than  some  of  the 
labor  institutions  and  industries  of  this  very  day.  The  most  en 
lightened  families  must  part;  but  on  many  hundreds  of  planta 
tions,  generation  after  generation  of  slave's  succeeded  each  other 
without  a  sale.  Husband  and  wife  were  seldom  parted,  and  young 
children  were  left  with  their  parents.  The  slave-drivers,  as  those 
who  bought  and  sold  negroes  were  called,  had  no  standing  with  the 
best  people  in  the  South.  No  matter  how  white  he  was.  the  slave 
dealer  was  not  even  permitted  to  eat  at  the  table  with  the  better 
families. 

Dr.  Wil'son,  President  of  Princeton  University,  says,  "Slavery 
showed  at  its  worst  where  it  was  most  seen  by  observers  from  the 
North, — upon  its  edges  .  .  .  but  in  the  heart  of  the  South  conditions 
were  different,  were  more  normal.  Domestic  slaves  were  almost 
uniformly  dealt  with  indulgently  and  even  affectionately  by  their 

291Am.  Slave  Trade,  221  :  Roosevelt,  New  York,  204. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

masters.  ...  <0n  principle,  in  habit,  even  on  the  grounds  of  self- 
interest,  the  greater  part  of  the  slave-owners  were  humane  in  the 
treatment  of  their  slaves,— kind,  indulgent,  not  over- exacting,  and 
sincerely  interested  in  the  physical  well-being  of  their  depend 
ents/ — is  the  judgment  of  an  eminently  competent  northern  ob 
server  who  visited  the  South  in  1844.  'Field  hands'  came  constantly 
under  the  master's  eye,  were  comfortably  quartered,  and  were  kept 
from  overwork  both  by  their  own  laziness  and  by  the  slack  disci 
pline  to  which  they  were  subjected."  Again  the  same  writer  ob 
serves:  "Probably  the  most  demoralizing  feature  of  the  system, 
taken  as  a  whole,  was  its  effect  on  the  marriage  relation  among  the 
negroes.  It  sometimes  happened  that  husbands  were  sold  away 
from  their  wives,  children  away  from  their  parents;  but  even  this 
evil  was  in  most  instances  checked  by  the  wisdom  and  moral  feel 
ing  of  the  slave-owners.  Even  in  the  ruder  communities  public 
opinion  demanded  that  when  negroes  were  sold,  families  should  be 
kept  together,  particularly  mothers  and  their  children.  Slave- 
dealers  were  universally  detested,  and  even  ostracized ;  and  the  do 
mestic  slave  trade  was  tolerated  only  because  it  was  deemed  neces 
sary  for  economic  distribution  of  the  slave  population."292 

Alexander  Black,  a  reputable  and  reliable  historian  of  Northern 
proclivities,  says  that  the  border  States  "presented  probably  the 
least  offensive  form  of  slavery.  The  conditions  of  life  in  Kentucky 
favored  a  domestic  kind  of  servitude  under  which  the  slaves  dis 
played  little  discontent.  In  Virginia  slavery  never  revealed  its  most 
objectionable  traits;  and  throughout  the  river  counties  of  both 
States  the  treatment  of  the  slaves  was  so  humane  that  a  relatively 
small  number  accepted  the  river's  invitation  to  escape."293  Here, 
then,  is  eminent  testimony  that  neither  upon  "its  edges"  nor  "in 
the  heart  of  the  South"  was  slavery  what  agitators  were  continually 
representing  it  to  be.  As  the  agitation  went  on,  the  South  grad 
ually  was  being  led  out  for  execution  upon  false  testimony. 

Many  histories  paint  in  stunning  colors  the  value  and  great  num 
bers  of  the  domestic  slave  trade.  Yet,  deplorable  as  it  now  and 
then  was,  when  the  worst  is  told,  even  if  we  take  the  most  flagrant 
cases,  those  that  are  admittedly  exceptions,  as  a  measure,  these  evils 


292Division  and  Reunion   (1893),  125,  126,  127. 
2!)3The  Story  of  Ohio,  215. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  139 

did  not  begin  to  compare  with  the  murders,  deaths  from  torture, 
parting  of  families,  wholesale  destruction  of  children,  and  the  ac 
cursed  stench  that  rose  from  the  trade  on  the  'seas  like  a  death  mist 
which  filled  the  nostrils  of  the  civilized  world,  making  our  flag  a  by 
word  and  an  emblem  of  piracy.  Both  sections,  it  is  true,  had  their 
sins ;  but  what  was  a  mote  in  the  eye  of  the  South,  became  a  beam 
in  the  Northern  eye,  upon  which  rode  the  chief  of  the  Harpies 
whose  bony  hand  reeked  with  blood  while  hi's  treachery  fattened — 
not  figuratively,  but  literally — the  sharks  of  the  ocean  on  women 
and  babies. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  some  figures,  and  see  if  our  asser 
tions  are  well  founded.  We  can  never  know  the  full  extent  of  the 
shipments  by  the  North;  the  greater  part  was  done  clandestinely, 
and  never  saw  the  light  of  a  record.  But  enough  is  known  to  en 
able  us  to  get  a  glimpse  which  is  very  significant.  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina  were  the  great  slave-producing  and  selling  States. 
During  one  of  Virginia's  best  years  of  the  trade,  she  sold  40,000. 
These  were  sold  to  planters  in  the  United  States.  We  can  make  an 
interesting  estimate  of  what  was  the  part  of  the  Northern  trade  in 
negroes,  and  may  have  an  idea  of  the  number  sold  mostly  to  worse 
masters  than  those  found  in  the  States,  from  the  following  slavers 

and  the  number  that  each  carried  at  the  date  given : 

SLAVES 

YEAR.  NAME  OF  VESSEL  AND  WHERE  FKOM.                       CARRIED. 

1841         SOPHIA,  of  !New  York,  shipped  to  Brazil  one  trip 750 

1844         SOOY,  of  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  captured  with 600 

1847         FAME,  of  Connecticut,  landed  in  Brazil 700 

1847         SENATOR,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  landed  in  Brazil 944 

1850  MARTHA,  of  New  York,  captured  while  about  to  embark.  1,800 

1850         LUCY  ANN,  of  Boston,  Mass 547 

1853  CAMARGO,  of  Portland,  Me.,  landed  in  Brazil 500 

1854  GLAMORGAN,  of  New  York,  about  to  embark 700 

1860         THE  ERIE,  from  a  Northern  port,  captured  with 897 

1864         HUNTERS,  of  New  York 500 

Ten  vessels  carried  a  total  of 7,938 

This  leaves  on  the  average  for  a  vessel,  not  counting  fractions, 
793  slaves.  This  I  believe  to  be  an  underestimate.  In  1838  the 
Venus  embarked  1.100  slaves  and  landed  860  of  them;294  and  about 


2MDavid  Turnbull,  of  Eng.,  Cuba   (London,  1848),  43G. 


140  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

1854  another  American  slave  ship,  the  Bender,  landed  800  in  South 
America.21"  In  the  colonial  days  very  small  crafts  carried  nearly  a 
thousand.  They  were  often  packed  like  bags  of  salt  on  the  water 
kegs,  or  pinned  by  heavy  irons  to  the  floors,  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  make  life  very  uncertain.  So  that  the  above  list  is  selected  to 
show  what  the  ship  in  the  later  days  of  the  trade  carried.  I  might 
extend  the  list  to  thousands,  but  since  we  can  only  get  an  estimate 
at  best,  this  will  answer.  Within  little  more  than  a  year,  we  have 
seen  that  eighty-five  fitted  out  from  one  port.  If  one  port  furnished 
so  many,  it  will  be  entirely  safe  to  estimate  one  hundred  from  all 
the  ports  of  the  one  State;  this  gives  one  Northern  State  alone  an 
enslavement  of  over  111,000  people,  estimating  one  trip  per  year. 
But  a  vessel  could  make  two  trips  a  year,  which  gives  u's  222,000 
human  beings  both  enslaved  and  sold  by  the  citizens  of  a  single 
State.  This  is  more  than  five  times  the  number  sold  by  Virginia 
alone,  and  more  than  twice  as  many  as  sold  in  any  one  year  by  both 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina,  the  two  most  extensive  slave-trading 
States  in  the  South. 

If  we  take  the  earlier  stages  of  the  slave  trade  by  the  North,  the 
figures  are  very  much  more  in  excess  of  those  of  the  Southern  trade. 
For  instance,  as  early  as  1770  Rhode  Island  had  one  hundred  and 
fifty  vessels  engaged  in  the  trade.  Incredible  as  it  seems  to  us, 
these  early  crafts,  small  as  they  were,  were  made  to  carry  from  200 
to  800,  and  even  more,  slaves.  If  we  make  the  very  conservative 
estimate  by  allowing  only  200  slaves  carried  by  each  vessel  in  the 
year,  we  have  this  one  State  enslaving  30,000  people. 

Bancroft  says,  "The  horrors  of  the  passage  corresponded  with 
the  infamy  of  the  trade.  Small  vessels  of  little  more  than  two  hun 
dred  tons'  burden,  were  prepared  for  the  traffic.  ...  In  such  a  bark 
five  hundred  negroes  and  more  have  been  stowed,  exciting  wonder 
that  men  could  have  lived  within  the  tropics,  cribbed  in  so  few 
inches  room  .  .  .  death  hovered  always  over  the  slave  ship.296 

From  what  I  have  said,  the  young  student  must  not  conclude 
that  no  Southerner  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.  A  few  did.  Now 
and  then  a  vessel  fitted  out  from  New  Orleans,  or  Norfolk,  or  a 
South  Carolina  port.  But  it  was  not  uncommon  that  vessels  had 


295Edw.  Wilberforce.  of  Ens.  Navy,  Brazil   (London,  1856),  p.  20. 
298Geo.  Bancroft,  History  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  272-3. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  141 

Southern  names,  for  instance,  the  KENTUCKY,  which  belonged 
exclusively  to  Northern  men ;  and  so  not  all  those  that  purported  to 
be  Southern  were  really  so.  We  noticed  this  in  the  report  from  the 
harbor  record  of  Charleston  given  previously.  Now  and  then  a 
Southern  man,  occasionally  one  of  prominence,  like  Gov.  D.  B. 
Mitchell,  who  resigned  the  office  of  governor  of  his  State,  engaged 
in  slave-smuggling.  The  number  of  such  men  and  the  number  of 
vessel's  were  so  inconsiderable,  considering  those  which  were  the 
bona  fide  property  of  Southern  men,  that  they  have  little  import 
ance  except  in  the  coast-wise  trade,  which  was  not  an  import  trade, 
and  which  has  already  been  noticed.  In  the  case  of  Governor 
Mitchell,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  he  was  prosecuted  under  a 
charge  brought  by  Governor  Clark,  governor  of  the  State  of  Georgia. 
His  case  was  most  certainly  exceptional.  No  State  was  making  a 
more  honest  effort  to  stop  the  importing  of  negroes  than  was 
Georgia.  Mitchell's  offence  was  alleged  to  have  been  committed  in 
the  fall  and  winter  of  1817.  In  aid  of  the  constitutional  prohibi 
tion  of  Georgia,  her  legislature  had  passed  some  very  rigid  laws, 
and  only  a  few  months  before  the  Mitchell  case,  about  1816,  one  of 
these  made  the  importing  of  negroes  a  penitentiary  offence.  At  the 
time,  Mitchell  was  Indian  agent,  to  which  he  had  been  appointed 
by  the  President  on  his  resignation  from  the  governorship.  This 
is  why  the  papers  in  the  case  were  presented  to  the  Senate  May  6, 
1822.  The  original  record  is  worth  reading.297 

Another  case  was  that  of  the  Wanderer  which  Mr.  Seward  said 
was  the  only  exception  during  the  twenty  years  immediately  pre 
ceding  the  Civil  War.  She  was  built  in  New  England,  fitted  out  in 
New  York,  officered  by  the  North,  and  had  Col.  John  Egbert  Far- 
num,  bom  in  New  Jersey,  educated  in  Penn.,  an  active  Union  officer 
in  the  war,  as  her  captain.  Of  her  crew  only  one  was  a  Southern 
man.  C.  A.  L.  Lamar,  of  Georgia,  was  interested  in  her  cargo,  which 
was  landed  in  Ga.  Every  effort  to  bring  the  guilty  parties  to  jus 
tice  was  used  by  Gen.  Henry  R.  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  who  was  ably 
assisted  by  the  daring  Lucien  Peyton,  of  Virginia.  Jackson's  speech 
reviewing  the  history  of  the  case,  delivered  in  Atlanta  some  years 
ago,  has  become  a  classic. 


'American  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  Vol.  II.,  958. 


VIII. 

LEGALITY  OF  FIRST  KANSAS  ELECTIONS. 

THEIR  RELATION  TO  THE  CIVIL  WAR;  FACTS  FROM  ORIGINAL  RECORDS. 

We  have  been  looking  at  Northern  objections  to  the  bill  opening 
the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  for  settlement.     I  have 
given  my  view  of  the  true  motives  which  actuated  a  great  body  of 
the  North,  and  which  dictated  their  political  position.     We  come 
now  to  a  stage  of  our  investigation  in  which  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
designs  against  the  South  and  her  political  power  took  a  decidedly 
more  aggressive  form.    By  the  passage  of  the  bill  opening  the  new 
Territory,  the  majority  voice  in  the  nation's  legislature  declared  in 
favor  of  the  doctrine  that  each  State  or  Territory  should  manage 
its  own  domestic  institutions,  limited  only  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.    Up  to  that  time  the  fight  between  the  two  sec 
tions   had  been   waged   in   Congress   and   through   non-legislative 
means.     The  North  now  despaired  of  carrying  their  ends  in  the 
national  legislature,  and  determined  to  turn  their  batteries  against 
the  Territories.     It  was  recognized  that  local  elections  would  de 
termine  the  political   complexion  of   Congress.     The  North  was 
afraid  to  leave  the  emigration  and  settlement  of  the  new  Territories 
to  normal,  natural  causes.    Southern  political  power,  supplemented 
by  numerous  representatives  from  the  North,  was  in  the  ascendency. 
The  North  saw  that  if  she  let  the  people  go  and  make  homes  in  the 
new  country  and  frame  constitutions  as  inclination  and  local  in 
terests  led,  that  that  meant  an  end  of  her  political  ambitions;  so 
she  determined  to  seize  the  embryo  States,  honestly  if  she  might, 
"at  all  hazards"  if  need  be.    Of  course,  while  the  fight  for  Northern 
views  was  being  hotly  waged  in  the  national  legislature,  much  fuss 
was  made  about  the  negro,  and  a  greater  or  less  effort  made  to  in 
duce  the  world  to  believe  that  the  fight  was  in  his  behalf.    But  the 
truth  was,  that  this  movement  was  as  much  anti-negro  as  anti- 
slavery, — a  movement  wholly  devoid  of  any  social,  civil,  or  moral 
consideration  for  the  negro,  bond  or  free. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  143 

Without,  perhaps,  exactly  seeing  the  force  of  what  he  said,  Mr. 
Eli  Thayer,  one  of  the  most  prominent  and  aggressive  Northern 
men  of  his  day,  admits  that  all  the  Kansas  trouble  grew  out  of  the 
unwillingness  to  trust  the  majority  voice  of  the  people  because  its 
largest  influence  came  from  the  South,  or  was  in  accord  with  views 
agreeable  to  Southern  statesmen.  In  his  book  covering  the  Kansas 
struggle,  he  says,  "On  May  30,  1854,  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  con 
taining  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  was  signed  by 
President  Pierce,  and  became  the  law  of  the  land.  .  .  .  The  slave 
states,  with  thirty-five  years  of  political  supremacy  and  the  pres 
tige  of  the  last  great  victory  over  the  North,  with  perfect  discipline 
and  irresistible  power,  were  confident  of  undisputed  control  in  the 
government  for  generations  to  come.  ...  In  a  few  years  her  Sena 
tors  in  Congress  would  nearly  double  the  number  from  the  North. 
Their  skill  in  diplomacy  and  politics,  acquired  by  unremitting  prac 
tice  and  study,  much  excelled  that  of  the  Northern  people.  ...  No 
wonder  that  we  were  helpless  and  hopeless  .  .  .  the  apprehension  be 
came  despondency,  and  the  alarm  became  despair." 

The  mere  fact  that  the  South  "for  thirty-five  years"  had  enjoyed 
political  supremacy,  justified  the  North  in  no  act  which  did  not 
fully  accord  with  the  right  and  legal  use  of  the  ballot.  All  these 
were  years  of  prosperity ;  it  is  not  disputed  that  during  all  this  time 
Northern  industrial  development  knew  no  bounds.  Yet,  as  a 
remedy  for  this  political  despair,  what  did  the  protesting  faction 
propose?  Failing  at  the  ballot,  what  remedy  was  to  be  sought? 
Declaiming  against  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  a  few 
days  before  its  passage,  the  New  York  Tribune,  as  quoted  by  Con 
gressmen  who  read  the  signs  of  the  times  aright  as  they  appeared 
on  the  horizon,  said,  "We  urge,  therefore,  unbending  determination 
on  the  part  of  Northern  members  hostile  to  this  intolerable  outrage, 
and  demand  of  them,  in  behalf  of  peace — in  behalf  of  freedom — in 
behalf  of  justice  and  humanity — resistance  to  the  last.  Better  that, 
confusion  shall  ensue  in  the  national  councils — better  that  Congress 
should  break,  up  in  wild  disorder — nay,  better  that  the  Capitol  it 
self  should  blaze  by  the  torch  of  the  incendiary,  or  fall  and  bury 
all  its  inmates  beneath  its  crumbling  ruins,  than  that  this  perfidy 
and  wrong  should  be  finally  accomplished."28'  The  New  York  Cou- 


298Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,   724. 


144:  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

rier  and  Enquirer,  June  26,  1856,  editorially  said,  "The  remedy  is, 
to  go  to  the  polls,  and  through  the  ballot-box  repudiate  the  infa 
mous  platform  put  forth  at  Cincinnati  [by  the  Democratic  conven 
tion],  and  over  which  the  black  flag  of  slavery  waves  with  charac 
teristic  impudence;  and  failing  in  this  [t.  e.,  if  defeated  at  the  bal 
lot]  do  as  our  fathers  did  before  us — stand  by  our  inheritable  rights, 
and  drive  lack  with  arms  those  who  dare  to  trample  upon  our  in 
heritance.  There  is  no  boasting  and  no  threat  in  this.  It  is  the 
calm  language  of  honest,  conscientious,  and  determined  freemen, 
wafted  to  us  by  every  breeze  from  the  West;  and  they  are  already 
acting  in  strict  conformity  with  their  avowed  determination."* 
"They  are  already  acting.''  To  whom  does  this  writer,  represen 
tative  of  the  party  to  which  he  belongs,  refer?  He  refers  to  the 
West — to  the  actions  of  those  who  are  in  accord  with  his  doctrine 
who  are  carrying  out  his  plan  in  Kansas.  Listen  to  the  responsive 
echo  from  Kansas :  the  Herald  of  Freedom,  Lawrence,  Kansas,  the 
official  organ  of  the  free-State-abolition  movement,  details  of  which 
are  shortly  to  be  given,  exclaims,  "Come  one,  come  all,  slavocrats 
and  milliners;  we  have  rifles  enough,  and  bullets  enough,  to  send 
you  all  to  your  (Judas')  own  place!  If  you  are  coming,  why  don't 
you  come  along  ?"*  Were  it  possible  to  mistake  this  plain  language, 
that  of  General  James  Watson  Webb,  at  the  time  editor  of  the  New 
York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  would  settle  the  doubt :  "They  tell  us 
that  they  are  willing  to  abide  by  the  ballot-box,  and  willing  to  make 
that  the  last  appeal.  //  we  fail  there,  what  then?  We  will  drive  it 
lack,  sword  in  hand,  and  so  help  me  God!  believing  that  to  be 
right,  I  am  with  them."  ["Loud  cheer's  and  cries  of,  Good."]301 

Every  man  who  believes  he  is  right,  may  act.  But  he  doe's  so  at 
his  peril.  An  impartial  world  must  sit  in  judgment  upon  his  jus 
tification  or  excusability ;  and  if  his  belief  shall  be  seen  to  have  been 
without  adequate  foundation  or  improperly  reached,  he  is  either  a 
criminal,  an  unfair  and  dishonest  man,  or  a  fanatic,  as  the  facts 
may  determine.  The  fugitive  slave  laws,  especially  that  of  1850, 
and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  are  the  admitted  grounds  for  the 
proposed  Northern  action.  From  what  has  preceded,  most  certainly 


2MQuoted  in  Cong.  Globe,  Ib.,  728. 

300Ib. 

301Quoted  in  App'dx  Cong.  Globe,  Ib.,  728. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  145 

taken  in  connection  with  facts  yet  to  be  examined,  the  untenability 
of  the  objections  to  each  of  these  measures  will  be  undeniably  ap 
parent.  I  further  maintain  that  there  is  one  thing  beyond  cavil, 
and  that  is  that  this  position  of  this  dangerous  Northern  faction 
was  proposed  rebellion — and  rebellion  against  the  lawful  govern 
ment,  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Congress  pursuant  thereto;  and 
a  rebellion  against  the  majority  will  of  the  whole  people  of  the 
Union  who  yet  supported  that  Constitution  and  those  laws  which 
that  party  held  objectionable,  which  were  passed  by  virtue  of  the 
authority  vested  in  Congress  by  that  Constitution.  Since  rebellion 
is  "deliberate  organized  resistance,  by  force  and  arms,  to  the  laws 
or  operations  of  a  government,  by  those  who  owe  it  obedience,"  as 
the  evidence  is  presented  it  will  prove  that,  having  failed  at  the  bal 
lot,  the  resistance  was  carried  out  by  organized  armed  force,  and  so 
passed  from  proposed  to  overt,  sanguinary  rebellion. 

That  the  Constitution  and  the  objectionable  laws  were  yet 
supported  by  the  greater  number  of  people,  the  Whig  and  Demo 
cratic  votes  of  1852,  in  approval  of  their  party  platforms,  prove  as 
only  such  things  can  be  proven  under  republican  governments. 

The  Whig  platform,  upon  which  General  Scott  asked  the  votes  of 
the  people,  declared,  "8.  Eesolved,  That  the  series  of  acts  of  the 
Thirty-first  Congress,  commonly  known  as  the  compromise  or  ad 
justment  acts  (the  act  for  the  recovery  of  fugitives  from  labor  in 
cluded),  are  received  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  Whigs  of  the  United 
States,  as  a  final  settlement  in  principle  and  substance  of  the  sub 
jects  to  which  they  relate.  .  .  .  And  we  deprecate  all  further  agi 
tation  of  the  questions  thus  settled  as  dangerous  to  our  peace." 
The  Democrats  stood  upon  the  declaration,  "9.  That  Congress  has 
no  power,  under  the  Constitution,  to  interfere  with  or  control  the 
domestic  institutions  of  the  several  States  .  .  .  the  Democratic  party 
.  .  .  will  abide  by  and  adhere  to,  a  faithful  execution  of  the  acts 
known  as  the  compromise  measures,  settled  by  the  last  Congress, 
and  the  act  for  reclaiming  fugitives  from  service  or  labor  included, 
which  act,  being  designed  to  carry  out  an  express  provision  of  the 
Constitution  cannot,  with  fidelity  thereto,  be  repealed,  or  so 
changed  as  to  destroy  its  efficacy."  Mr.  Pierce  represented  this 
party.  Upon  these  announced  principles  the  parties  went  before 
the  country  with  the  result  that — 
10 


146  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Pierce   received 1,640,260 

Scott   1,422,954 


Total,    3,063,214 

The  principle,  thus  endorsed,  of  the  compromise  acts  of  1850, 
was  "non-intervention  by  Congress  in  the  domestic  affairs  of  the 
States  and  Territories";  and  upon  this  principle  fixed  then  and 
there  was  set  a  precedent  by  leaving  Utah  and  New  Mexico  to  set 
tle  their  several  internal  or  domestic  affairs,  including  that  of  negro 
servitude;  and  in  addition  to  this,  Congress  decided,  "in  principle 
and  substance,"  to  enforce  the  Constitutional  fugitive  slave  provi 
sions,  which  legislation  was  in  full  harmony  with  the  teachings  of 
such  great  constitutional  expounders  as  Daniel  Webster.  These 
were  the  principles  which  over  three  and  one-half  millions  of  the 
sovereign  voters  specifically  endorsed,  and  upon  which  they  declared 
they  wanted  all  further  legislation,  without  agitation,  based.  The 
little  handful  of  less  than  two  hundred  thousand — it  being  one 
wing  of  the  abolition  faction  calling  themselves  Free-Democracy, 
who  opposed  this  great  majority,  did  nothing  less  than  declare  in 
favor  of  rebellion.  Hear  them :  John  P.  Hale  was  their  candidate, 
and  their  platform  declared  that,  "5  ...  our  distinct  and  final  an 
swer  is,  no  more  slave  State's — no  slave  territory.  .  .  .  That  the 
fugitive  slave  act  of  1850  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution — to  the 
principles  of  American  law.  .  .  .  We  therefore  deny  its  binding 
force  upon  the  American  people  .  .  .  the  purpose  of  the  Free-Democ 
racy  is,  to  take  possession  of  the  Federal  Government." 

This  minority  declaration  became  the  avowed  doctrine  and  pur 
pose  of  the  free-State  abolition  movement.  All  the  fire  and  fury 
aimed  at  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill — a  bill  in  full  harmony  with  the 
views  of  more  than  'three  millions  of  Whigs  and  Democrats — took 
this  same  position;  the  comparatively  small  Garrison  party,  the 
most  pronounced  secession-abolitionists,  joined  their  mad  howl  to 
this  protest.  To  back  it  armed  rebellion  instigated  and  carried  out 
by  Northerners  spilled  the  first  fraternal  blood  of  America.  Out  of 
the  din  of  battle,  out  of  the  combination  of  all  sources  of  abolition, 
sprang  the  same  old  clamor  from  the  mouths  of  the  Lincoln  Repub 
licans.  These  last  finally  won  the  control  of  the  government,  but 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  protests  of  nearly  one  million  majority 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  147 

of  the  free,  sovereign,  voters  of  our  country.  Northern  rebellion 
in  theory  and  then  in  organized  armed  resistance,  preceded  South 
ern  Secession. 

Even  before  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  spirit 
of  resistance  found  bold  leaders  who  prepared  to  move  down  upon 
the  borders  of  the  enemy.  Kansas  offered  several  advantages  for 
practical  operations;  they  resolved  to  dominate  the  politics  of  the 
Territory  and  mould  her  into  a  State  after  their  own  conceptions 
let  the  cost  be  what  it  might;  the  sequel  proved  that  they  meant  to 
dominate  her  ballot-box,  peaceably  if  they  could,  at  all  hazards  and 
regardless  of  existing  laws  if  need  be.  Those  were  found  who  stub 
bornly  contested  every  inch  of  the  mad  field,  and  thus  Kansas  be 
came  the  scene  of  bloodshed  and  bitter  sectional  war — "the  prelude 
to  the  great  Civil  War."  Charles  Eobinson,  one  of  the  chief  North 
ern  actors,  and  whose  writings  are  held  in  much  repute  by  a  certain 
class  at  this  day,  writing  of  the  attitude  of  his  party  after  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  says,  "There  was  now  but  one  way 
of  salvation  for  Kansas  [to  become  anti- Southern  in  sentiment], 
and  that  was  not  through  the  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial  de 
partments  of  the  Government,  through  anti-slavery  societies  or  po 
litical  organizations,  but  the  promise  land,  as  of  old,  must  be  se 
cured  by  taking  possession  of  it,  or  not  at  all." 

The  methods  used  in  taking  this  "possession,"  the  results  and  in 
cidents  of  her  first  Territorial  elections,  the  struggle  between  the 
two  factions  after  the  first  elections,  and  the  part  taken  by  the 
North, — all  generally  grossly  and  persistently  misrepresented, — 
give  us  some  of  the  most  important  overt  acts  on  the  part  of  the 
North,  which,  since  their  repetition  became  constantly  more  pos 
sible,  justified  secession.  Not  only  illegal  voting,  but  looting,  re 
bellion  against  both  local  and  United  States  governments,  and  mur 
der,  fill  the  annals  of  the  Kansas  struggle  from  1854  to — in  fact, 
it  may  be  correctly  said,  the  close  of  the  Civil  War.  Alex.  Johnson, 
some  time  professor  of  jurisprudence  and  political  economy  in 
Princeton  (New  Jersey)  University,  of  this  period,  says,  "...  the 
struggle  passed  into  a  real  civil  war,  the  two  powers  mustering  con 
siderable  armies,  fighting  battles,  capturing  towns,  and  paroling 
prisoners."30  Citizens  of  Missouri  primarily  and  the  South  sec- 


United  States   (Scribners,  1889),  201. 


148  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ondarily  by  reason  of  the  slavery  interest,  unremittingly  have  been 
held  responsible  for  all  this  evil  and  confusion.  I  am  going  to  pre 
sent  evidence  which  I  maintain  shows  that  the  charge  is  without 
adequate  foundation. 

When  the  bill  opening  the  Territories  became  operative,  the 
President  appointed  the  first  officers.  These  officers  entered  the 
Territory  of  Kansas  in  November,  1854,  and  at  once  entered  upon 
the  duties  of  government,  It  was  early  necessary  to  elect  a  Terri 
torial  representative  to  Congress ;  each  new  territory  is  allowed  one 
representative,  who  may  speak  for  her,  but  not  vote.  Governor 
Eeeder,  formerly  of  Pennsylvania,  who  was  the  Presidential  ap 
pointee,  issued  rules  and  designated  voting  places  and  ordered  this 
election  for  November  29,  1854.  It  was  also  necessary  to  elect  a 
legislative  body,  whose  duty  it  would  be  to  frame  a  constitution,  or 
provide  for  such  work,  upon  which  the  Territory  would  ask  to  be 
come  a  State.  This  election  for  legislators  was  ordered  for  March 
30,  1855.  It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  this  election  promised  to  be 
the  most  exciting,  since  it  would  determine  whether  the  State 
should  have  its  policy  and  fundamental  laws  moulded  according  to 
New  England  ideas  or  should  follow  recognized  Southern  policies. 
The  triumph  of  the  New  England  party,  or  Northern  party,  called 
free-State,  anti-Slavery  men,  abolitionists,  etc.,  meant  strength 
in  Congress  for  a  repetition  of  the  ruinous  tariff  of  1828-'32 ;  it- 
meant  a  partisan  expenditure  of  public  treasure  to  further  purely 
Northern  enterprises;  it  meant  the  restriction  of  Southern  emi 
gration;  and  necessarily,  the  untimely  restriction  in  the  United 
States  of  territorial  slavery,  which  by  no  means  meant  a  mitigation 
of  the  evils  of  slavery.  It  meant,  worst  of  all,  a  crusade  into  South 
ern  States  in  such  a  way  as  to  endanger  female  virtue,  life,  and 
property,  to  say  nothing  of  the  threatened  danger  to  local  State  con 
trol  by  those  who  had  not  come  to  make  the  place  permanent  homes. 
Upon  these  issues  the  powers  joined  in  battle  at  the  ballot.  Of  these 
first  elections  let  me  quote  you  what  historians  are  teaching  our 
young  people.  The  reader  will  then  be  in  a  position  better  to  judge 
for  himself  as  to  the  value  and  reliability  of  some  modern  text 
books  and  popular  histories, — in  so  far  as  they  treat  of  acts,  move 
ments,  or  issues  which  led  to  the  Civil  War. 

Usual  version  of  earlv  Kansas  elections : — 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  149 

In  a  school  history  published  in  1900  by  one  of  our  largest  text 
book  houses,  we  have  this  statement  vouched  as  strictly  historical : 

"The  settlers  who  opposed  slavery  were  soon  in  the  majority; 
but  as  all  the  settlements  were  near  the  Missouri  boundary,  the  pro- 
slavery  party  was  reinforced  by  men  from  the  latter  state,  who 
crossed  the  line  and  voted  more  than  enough  ballots  at  every  elec 
tion  to  counterbalance  the  free  vote's;  sometimes,  indeed,  the  num 
ber  of  ballots  counted  was  more  than  the  whole  number  of  votes  in 
the  Territory."303 

Another,  published  also  by  one  of  our  largest  text-book  companies, 
has  this  to  say : 

"The  free-State  people  and  the  slave-State  people  now  came  into 
collision  on  the  Kansas  plains.  Men  from  Mi'ssouri  assisted  the 
Southern  party.  Eival  governments  were  formed.  Kansas  soon 
became  the  scene  of  a  violent  struggle.  Midnight  assassinations 
and  mobs  were  common,  and  something  like  open  war  broke  out 
from  time  to  time.  The  men  from  the  Northern  states  soon  had  a 
majority,  and  asked  admission  to  the  Union."30 

And  yet  a  third  much-used  history  for  teaching  our  youths,  pub 
lished  by  a  leading  text-book  company,  has  this  to  give  as  gospel 
history : 

"The  election  of  the  member's  of  the  territorial  legislature  took 
place  in  March,  1855.  On  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  the 
people  of  Kansas  were  to  decide  whether  the  territory  should  be 
slave  or  free.  Should  the  majority  of  the  legislature  consist  of 
free-States  men,  then  Kansas  would  be  a  free  territory.  Should  a 
majority  of  pro-slavery  men  be  chosen,  then  Kansas  was  doomed 
to  have  slavery  fastened  on  her,  and  this  the  Missourians  deter 
mined  should  be  done.  For  weeks  before  the  election,  therefore,  the 
border  counties  of  Missouri  were  all  astir.  Meetings  were  held,  and 
secret  societies,  called  Blue  Lodges,  were  formed,  the  members  of 
which  were  pledged  to  enter  Kansas,  take  possession  of  the  polls,  and 
elect  a  pro-slavery  legislature.  The  plan  was  strictly  carried  out, 
and  as  election  day  drew  near,  the  Missourians,  fully  armed,  entered 
Kansas  in  companies,  squads,  and  parties,  like  an  invading  army, 
voted  and  then  went  home  to  Missouri.  Every  member  of  the  leg- 


30r!Thompson's  School  History  U.  S.,  260. 
304Eggleston's  History  of  U.  S.,  300. 


150  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

islature  save  one  was  a  pro-slavery  man,  and  when  that  body  met,  all 
the  slave  laws  of  Missouri  were  adopted,  and  slavery  was  formally 
established  in  Kansas."80' 

To  leave  the  text-books,  let  us  see  what  is  said  of  this  "invasion" 
and  the  "invaders."  A  representative  variety  of  these  excerpts  are 
proper  as  introductory  in  order  to  assist  in  properly  understanding 
much  of  the  following  discussion.  I  present  them  to  stir  no  im 
pulse  of  resentment,  but  simply  because  fidelity  to  historical  truth 
requires  the  reviewer  of  historical  data,  unflinchingly  to  meet  what 
soever  falls  within  his  purview.  How  much  of  fidelity  to  the  facts 
the  several  pictures,  presented  by  the  various  writers,  contain,  and 
whether  the  historian  of  to-day,  who  either  partially  or  entirely  re 
flects  their  spirit  or  adopts  their  phraseology,  does  justice  to  the 
great  section  of  whose  people  he  writes,  may  be  the  more  certainly 
determined  by  presenting  along  with  what  I  hold  to  be  the  facts 
representative  statements  by  accredited  writers. 

A  citizen  of  Kansas,  writing  September  3,  1900,  says,  "The  first 
elections  were  scenes  of  violence  and  disorder.  The  large  lines  of 
whiskey-sodden  ruffians  wound  their  several  ways  about  the  prairies 
and  along  the  streams  of  Kansas,  took  armed  possession  of  the  polls 
and  voting  places,  cast  thousands  of  illegal  votes,  perjured  them 
selves  by  certifying  to  fraudulent  election  returns  and  returned  in 
a  drunken  frenzy  to  their  homes  in  Missouri. "* 

Doctor  Charles  Robinson  says  that  the  Northern  "settlers  were 
averse  to  resort  to  physical  force  in  the  settlement  of  any  conflict 
purely  moral  and  political";  and  that  these  Northern  men  found 
that  "the  Devil  would  flee  only  when  resisted,  and  that  pearls  were 
not  suitable  diet  for  all  animals  on  all  occasions."  He  also  says  that 
in  the  South  and  West  "the  man  who  would  pass  current  as  a  gen 
tleman  must  be  prepared  at  all  time's  to  protect  his  person  and 
honor  by  force."3( 

Says  Doctor  Clark,  "Those  who  could  not  submit  to  this  ["the 
murderous  assault  on  Charles  Sumner  by  Preston  Brooks  in  1856"] 
were  roused  by  the  border  ruffians  from  Missouri  who  invaded  Kan 
sas,  and  made  the  pro-slavery  constitution  for  that  State."sc 


303McMaster's  History  17.   S.,  351. 

308Connelley,  Life  of  John  Brown,  56. 

3«7The  Kan.  Conf.,   27. 

30SJames  Freeman  Clark,  Nineteenth  Century  Questions,  339. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  151 

H.  von  Hoist  (professor  at  the  University  of  Freiburg,  Germany) 
says  that  the  Mi'ssourians  published  their  resolutions  "with  brutal 
frankness/'  and  carried  out  their  threats  "with  audacity"  when  they 
"could  appeal  to  nothing  but  their  own  sovereign  good  pleasure."* 

Dr.  J.  C.  V.  Smith,  once  mayor  of  Boston,  claimed  to  have  seen 
a  camp  of  these  "invading  Missouri  ruffians,"  and  in  describing 
them  says  that  they  "were  young  men,  rough,  coarse,  sneering, 
swaggering,  dare-devil-looking  rascals  as  ever  swung  upon  a  gal 
lows.  They  had  not  a  redeeming  trait  of  character."  And  this 
description  Senator  Wilson  in  the  United  States  Senate  com 
mended.310 

The  personal  appearance  of  one  of  these  "Missouri  ruffians"  as 
given  by  a  contemporary  will  be  interesting  in  this  connection.  Of 
this  "border  ruffian,"  he  says,  "Imagine  a  man  standing  in  a  pair 
of  long  boots,  covered  with  dust  and  mud,  and  drawn  over  his  trous 
ers,  the  latter  made  of  coarse,  fancy  colored  cloth,  well  soiled;  the 
handle  of  a  large  bowde-knife  projecting  from  one  or  both  boot 
tops;  a  leathern  belt  buckled  around  his  waist,  on  each  side  of 
which  is  fastened  a  large  revolver ;  a  red  or  blue  shirt,  with  a  heart, 
anchor,  eagle  or  some  other  favorite  device  braided  on  the  breast 
and  back,  over  which  is  swung  a  rifle  or  carbine;  a  sword  dangling 
by  his  side,  and  a  chicken,  goose,  or  turkey  feather  sticking  in  the 
top  of  his  hat;  hair  uncut  and  uncombed,  covering  his  neck  and 
shoulders;  an  unshaved  face  and  unwashed  hands;  who  can  swear 
any  given  number  of  oaths  in  any  specified  time,  drink  any  quan 
tity  of  bad  whiskey  without  getting  drunk," — and  you  have  a  picture 
of  him.  I  have  been  inclined  to  feel  that  it  was  a  mere  clerical 
oversight  that  the  tail  and  horns  were  not  described. 

I  might  quote  almost  indefinitely  of  the  feats  of  this  mastodon- 
like  "border  ruffian."  His  actions,  Doctor  Clark  informs  us,  and, 
"in  truth,  the  course  of  the  Southern  leaders  illustrated  in  a  strik 
ing  way  the  distinction  between  a  politician  and  a  statesman.  They 
were  very  acute  politicians,"  he  continues,  "trained  in  all  the  tac 
tics  of  their  art;  but  they  were  poor  statesmen,  incapable  of  any 
large  strategic  plan  of  action."83 


""History  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  140. 

310App'dix  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  856. 

311Nineteenth  Century  Questions,  341. 


152  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Before  I  proceed  further  let  me  re-state  the  issue;  let  me  define 
my  position;  and  give,  as  I  understand  it,  the  Southern  contention. 

I  do  not  contend,  nor  did  the  South  ever  do  so,  that  the  North 
had  no  right  to  their  views  on  slavery.  I  do  not  say,  nor  did  the 
South,  that  a  citizen  who  was  opposed  to  slavery  did  not  have  a 
right  bona  fide  to  settle  a  new  territory,  and  when  a  legal  resident 
vote  his  sentiments  on  the  existence  of  that  institution  in  his 
adopted  State.  No  representative  pro-slavery  man  ever  denied  to 
any  representative  anti-slavery  citizen  his  legal,  Constitutional 
rights.  But  the  South  insisted  that  unconstitutional,  underhanded, 
illegal  methods  should  not  be  used  by  Northern  anti-slavery  men. 
Such  men  did  use  or  encourage  dishonest,  illegal  methods  to  effect 
their  objects,  in  numerous  instances  as  private  individuals  or  as 
organized  societies  up  to  and  through  the  Kansas  troubles;  and 
during  that  period,  both  as  individuals  and  as  organized,  capi 
talized,  State-legalized  bodies,  by  1.  EFFORTS  TO  ILLEGALLY 
CARRY  KANSAS  ELECTIONS,  with  the  view  accompanied  by 
overt  acts,  2.  TO  FOLLOW  THIS  WITH  A  WRONG,  IL 
LEGAL,  IMPROPER,  AND  IMMINENTLY  DANGEROUS 
ATTACK  ON  THE  EXISTING  SLAVE  STATES. 

I  lay  down  the  fundamental  assertion  that  the  Southern  people 
knew  of  all  this  at  the  time;  that  the  North  took  the  initiative  in 
the  struggle;  and  that  whatever  resulted  nationally  or  locally  was 
forced  upon  the  Southern  people.  In  our  present  investigation  let 
us  not  forget  that  we  now  see  as  history  what  Southern  citizens  then 
had  justifiable  reasons  to  believe  or  knew  as  transpiring  facts — pro 
ducing  conditions  affecting  them  and  their  children  then  and  there. 
We  are  not  to  look  at  a  theory,  we  are  not  to  see  things  that  have 
come  to  light  in  later  years,  we  are  not  considering  what  was  best 
to  have  been  done;  we  are  to  see  what  was  done  and  who  acted 
first, — and  I  shall  submit  that  but  for  which  initial,  unwarranted, 
action  a  great  blot  would  have  been  spared  our  fair  national  record. 

The  method  by  which  the  truth  of  these  assertions  is  to  be 
reached  is  important.  I  have  made  some  very  strong  charge's;  1 
have  already  quoted  some  very  eminent  authority  against  these  very 
charges ;  I  have  asserted  that  anti-slavery  men  for  many  years  prior 
to  and  down  to  the  Civil  War  were  threatening  and  making  overt 
demonstration  against  the  happiness,  legal  rights,  lives,  and  homes 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  153 

of  the  Southern  people;  I  have  asserted  that  those  whom  I  have 
quoted  touching  Kansas,  an€  alike  many  others,  are  incorrect,  and 
that  many  things  concerning  the  crucial  epoch  in  American  his 
tory  are  generally  only  partially  told.  How  are  we  to  know  whom 
to  believe?  I  answer,  By  re-examining,  a  lawyer  would  say  cross- 
examining,  the  witnesses  and  authority  upon  which  waiters  profess 
to  rely,  together  with  an  examination  of  all  original  evidence.  An 
unobscured  and  full  presentation  of  the  evidence  available  will,  I 
submit,  sustain  my  position. 

I  shall  begin  the  investigation  by  a  cross-examination  of  a  most 
competent  and  intelligent  witness,  and  one  upon  which  all  histo 
rians  rely  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  On  March  the  19th,  1856,  the 
lower  House  of  Congress  appointed  William  A.  Howard,  John  Sher 
man,  and  M.  Oliver,  two  of  whom  were  Northern  men  and  in  sym 
pathy  with  the  Northern  crusade,  a  committee  of  investigation,  and 
directed  them  to  go  wherever  necessary  and  to  "proceed  to  inquire 
into,  and  collect  evidence  in  regard  to  any  fraud  or  force  attempted 
or  practiced  in  reference  to  any  of  the  elections  which  have  taken 
place  in  said  Territory,  either  under  the  law  organizing  said  Ter 
ritory,  or  any  pretended  law  which  may  be  alleged  to  have  taken 
effect  therein  since;  and  when  the  investigation  shall  be  completed, 
to  report  the  evidence  so  collected  to  the  House/'  When  completed, 
the  reports,  evidence,  etc.,  comprise  nearly  two  thousand  printed 
pages.  The  investigation  began  with  the  first  election,  that  of  No 
vember  29,  1854,  and  investigated  all  others  up  to  the  time  of  the 
appointment  of  the  committee,  viz. :  March  30,  1855,  May  22,  1855, 
October  1,  1855,  and  December  15,  1855.  Evidence  was  taken  from 
the  New  England  States  to  the  plains  of  Kansas,  and  fully  cov 
ered — as  the  committee  was  further  ordered  to  do — not  alone  the 
legality  of  elections,  but  the  emigrant  aid  movement,  the  "Blue 
Lodges  of  Missouri,"  the  "Crusades  of  the  Missourians,"  the  ship 
ment  from  the  North  of  Sharp's  rifles  marked  "books,"  alleged 
murders,  except  the  Pottowatomie  massacre,  etc.  The  witnesses 
were  sworn,  and  several  months  were  spent  in  the  investigation. 
Therefore,  the  evidence  gathered  in  this  investigation,  printed  by 
the  government,  is  one  of  the  several  reliable  and  most  valuable 
sources  of  information  concerning  these  early  struggles  in  Kansas. 
It  throws  much  light  on  the  character  of  the  dangerous  aggressions 


154  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  abolition,  though  numerous  prominent  Northern  writers  leave 
concerning  it  a  different  impression.  <Mr.  Sherman  and  Mr.  How 
ard,  the  Northern  members,  made  a  report  containing  very  many 
partisan  assertions  based  on  no  evidence  gathered  by  the  commit 
tee,  and  by  no  means  borne  out  by  far  the  greater  weight  of  the  evi 
dence  taken.  These  men  began  the  evading  process,  and  their  ex 
ample  has  been  servilely  followed  by  those  historians  of  to-day  who 
have  sympathized  with  the  Northern  movement  of  that  day.  We 
must  keep  in  mind  that  the  free-State  men,  called  abolitionists 
and  various  other  names,  and  their  Northern  abettors,  had  every 
thing  at  stake  in  the  finding  of  this  congressional  committee.  They 
were  contesting  for  their  Kansas  representative  in  Congress;  they 
were  fighting  to  negative  the  legality  of  the  legislature  chosen 
March  30,  1855.  The  North  had  charged  that  this  legislature,  com 
posed  of  men  who  were  Southern  in  views  and  sympathy,  had  been 
elected  by  fraud,  non-resident  Southern  voters,  whom  they  called 
"Missouri  ruffians,"  and  by  intimidation.  This  legislature  had 
convened  at  Lecompton,  had  "organized  a  government,  and  framed 
a  constitution  permitting  slavery/'  The  Northern  emigrants  had 
held  conventions  in  various  places,  had  met  in  general  conven 
tions  ;  had  held  what  purported  to  be  elections  at  which  they  claimed 
to  have  chosen  a  legislature,  and  this  body  had  met  in  Topeka,  and 
had  organized  what  they  called  a  government;  an  anti-slavery  con 
stitution  was  framed;  and  this  Northern  faction  had  resolved  to 
stand  by  their  work  and  resist  the  laws  and  acts  of  the  authorized 
legislature,  "to  the  bloody  issue."  They  had  organized  and  drilled 
military  companies,  had  solicited  and  received  men,  money,  guns, 
cannon,  and  other  munitions  of  war  from  the  North.  Previous  to 
the  appointment  of  this  committee,  and  during  its  investigation, 
great  excitement  prevailed  North  and  South;  and,  if  I  might  be 
pardoned  for  using  Connelley's  pseudo-palliative,  murder  and  arson 
became  "incidents."  If  the  anti-slavery  men  were  in  the  wrong, 
they  had  become  rebels,  and  that  without  a  shadow  of  justification 
or  excuse.  Their  only  claim  for  justification  was  that  the  elections 
had  not  reflected  the  voice  of  the  bona,  fide  citizens. 

Mr.   Eobinson  and   similarly  many  who  write  from  the  anti- 
slavery  standpoint,  quote  from  the  report  of  Messrs.  Sherman  and 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  155 

Howard;  and  Eobinson  says  their  conclusions  are  "based  upon  the 
testimony  of  both  parties,  and  is  a  revelation  new  to  republican 
government."81  Then  he  proceeds  to  quote  the  honorable  gentle 
men, — but  not  once  does  he  take  time  to  give  us  a  fair  sample  of 
the  voluminous  evidence  taken  in  direct  contradiction  to  their  con 
clusions.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  report  made  by  these  gen 
tlemen  were  scattered  throughout  the  North  at  the  time,  and  were 
unaccompanied  by  the  evidence  either  pro  or  con  or  by  the 
minority  report.  Opinions  were  formed  from  what  was  said  in  that 
report,  and  the  fact  that  it  was  not  borne  out  by  the  evidence  in 
much  of  what  it  said,  especially  when  read  unaccompanied  by  the 
evidence,  could  not  be  otherwise  than  unknown  to  many.  I  shall 
first  quote  from  the  report  filed  by  Mr.  Oliver,  who  was  a  represen 
tative  from  Missouri,  and  then  give  such  abstracts  of  the  evidence 
as  that  it  may  be  seen  that  he  is  fully  borne  out,  and  so  that  it  may 
be  seen  that  I  am  substantiated  in  my  position.  I  shall  then  offer 
unimpeachable  evidence  corroborative  to  this  in  support  of  my  in 
dictment.  Those  who  wish  to  see  the  evidence  in  full  must  consult 
House  Eeport  Xo.  200,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.313 

Mr.  Oliver  says  that  the  report  made  by  hi's  colleagues  did  not 
have  his  consent;  and  not  this  only,  but  he  further  says  that  he 
"knew  nothing  of  the  contents  or  character"  of  "the  paper  in  the 
nature  of  a  report  drawn"  up  or  submitted  by  his  colleagues  "until 
it  was  read  in  the  House."  He  alleges  that  this  report  was  partisan 
and  "that  many  statements  therein  rest  upon  no  evidence  whatever 
taken  by  the  committee."  "There  is  no  evidence  that  any  violence 
was  resorted  to,  or  force  employed,  by  which  men  were  prevented 
from  voting  at  a  single  election  precinct  in  the  Territory,  or  that 
there  was  any  greater  disturbance  at  any  election  precinct" 
than  frequently  occurs  in  all  our  state  elections  in  exciting 
times.  A  number  of  witnesses  on  both  sides  swear  that  men 
on  both  sides  had  arms,  guns,  pistols,  bowie-knives,  etc.,  and 
made  threats,  etc.  But  no  one  of  them  swears  that  any  one 
was  prevented  from  voting  by  the  use  of  these  weapons  in  a  single 


312The  Kansas  Conf.,  10. 

813To  the  pages  of  this  original  document  I  refer  in  the  following  when,  for 
brevity,  simply  "Evidence"  or  "Majority"  or  "Minority  Report"  is  cited.  Each 
of  these  has  its  own  paging.  Read  notes  at  end  of  volume. 


156  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

instance.  .  .  ."  "The  testimony  from  beginning  to  end,"  continues 
Mr.  Oliver,  "does  not  disclose  the  fact  of  a  single  assault  and  bat 
tery  at  or  about  the  polls,  on  account  of  the  side  any  one  wished  to 
vote  or  had  voted,  in  the  whole  Territory  on  the  day  of  election."314 
He  also  asserts,  and  refers  to  sustaining  evidence,  that  the  legisla 
ture  and  all  other  officers  alleged  to  have  been  elected  by  the  South 
ern  emigrants,  WEEE  LEGALLY  CHOSEN.  If  these  assertions 
be  true,  then  the  statements  contained  in  the  extracts  I  have  pre 
viously  quoted  from  authors  recognized  to  be  standard,  are  incorrect. 

Dr.  Robinson  admits  that  in  the  first  election  the  Northern  men, 
who  were  the  anti-slavery  element,  were  in  the  minority.  On  page 
97,  Kansas  Conflict,  he  says,  "At  this  time  [election  November  29, 
1854]  every  considerable  settlement  in  the  Territory,  except  Law 
rence  and  vicinity,  was  pro^slavery.  .  .  ."  Gen.  Whitfield  was  can 
didate  on  the  Southern  ticket,  and  Messrs.  Wakefield  and  Flenniken 
represented  the  Northern  sentiment.  There  were  2,833  votes  cast 
for  all  candidates.  Of  these  Gen.  Whitfield  received  2,238,  Flenni 
ken  305,  Wakefield  248,  scattering  22.  Robinson  gives  the  figures 
somewhat  more  favorable  to  his  side  than  do  the  committee;815  but 
his  own  figures  show  the  Southern  or  pro-slavery  candidate,  Gen. 
Whitfield,  legally,  duly,  and  honestly  elected.  He  says  the  illegal 
vote  was  estimated  to  be  1,729;  take  this  from  the  General's  re 
ported  vote,  and  he  has  509  legal  votes.  This  gave  him  an  admitted 
majority  of  204  over  the  next  highest  candidate,  Flenniken,  who  re 
ceived  305.  It  is  an  unquestioned  rule  of  law  that  unless  the  fraud, 
or  intimidation,  in  an  election  fe  sufficient,  had  it  not  been  used  or 
resorted  to,  to  have  caused  a  different  result,  that  then  the  election 
is  not  thereby  vitiated.  ".  .  .  the  fact  that  illegal  votes  were  re 
ceived  will  not  affect  the  election,  or  render  it  void,  unless  the  num 
ber  is  great  enough  to  affect  the  general  result. 

"When,  however,  it  is  shown  that  illegal  votes  have  been  cast  for 
a  candidate,  they  should  be  deducted  from  his  vote;  and  if,  by  so 
doing,  the  general  result  is  changed,  the  opposite  candidate  should 
be  declared  elected."318  And  even  where  fraud  is  alleged  and  proved, 
unless  the  "fraud  is  of  such  a  character  that  the  correct  vote  can- 


814Minority  Report,  75. 
81sSee  Majority  Report,  8. 

8106  Congressional  Elec.   Cases,   243  ;  Amer.  and  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law,   Elections, 
352. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  157 

not  be  determined,"  it  does  not  invalidate  the  election  if  any  man 
received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  legally  cast.817  No  claim  was 
or  is  made  that  the  votes  returned  for  Flenniken  were  not  correct. 
Probably  no  popular  election  in  the  world  was  entirely  free  from 
some  fraud  or  irregularity;  and  whatever  there  was  in  that  one, 
both  by  evidence  of  sworn  witnesses  and  the  admissions  of  their 
own  writers,  leaves  it  legal.  Says  Dr.  Frank  W.  Blackmar,  of  the 
Kansas  University:  "There  is  little  doubt,  indeed,  that  Mr.  Whit- 
field  could  have  been  elected  had  there  been  no  fraudulent  votes 
cast,  for  at  this  time  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  Territory 
were  Proslavery."31  But — the  law  says  that  because  the  legal  votes 
were  in  the  majority — this  election  was  legal  and  indisputably  valid. 
Dr.  Blackmar,  it  would  seem  from  his  language,  makes  the  mistake 
of  assuming  that  some  illegal  or  fraudulent  votes  vitiates  an  elec 
tion  and  renders  it  nugatory.  This  is  not  only  a  very  grave  error — 
and  if  he  does  not  others  do  make  it — but  it  is  very  unfair  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  history  of  the  relations  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  Nothing  but  unpardonable  prejudice  can  keep  erroneous 
statements  concerning  the  Kansas  elections  current  in  history.  No 
man  was  ever  more  rightfully  entitled  to  his  seat  in  Congress  than 
was  General  Whitfield  under  the  valid  election  of  Kansas  Territory 
October  29,  1854-.  Prof.  Chas.  E.  Tuttle  fe  perhaps  the  only  his 
torian  who  is  thoroughly  anti-Southern  in  his  treatment  of  Kan 
sas  history,  who  has  the  fairness  frankly  to  admit  the  legality,  under 
the  law,  of  this  election.  He  says,  "Further,  it  may  be  mentioned 
that  when  a  congressional  investigation  was  made  into  the  facts,  it 
appeared  that  all  the  violence  and  fraud  resorted  to  were  surplusage, 
as  General  Whitfield  received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  that  were 
polled  on  the  29th  of  November,  1854."* 

I  have  thus  far  been  more  than  liberal  in  my  treatment  of  this 
election.  Even  those  who  admit  that  Whitfield  received  a  majority 
of  the  legal  votes  persist  in  speaking  of  "violence"  and  "intimi 
dation"  offered  by  Southerner's  or  Missourians.  It  is  due  to  history 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  even  less  ground  for  alleg 
ing  the  use  of  violence  or  intimidation  than  for  the  claim  that  there 

817Ib.,  353. 

818The  Life  of  Chas.  Robinson    (Topeka,  1902),  125. 

319A  New  Centennial  History  of  tbe  State  of  Kansas  (Madison,  Wis.,  and  Law 
rence,  Kans.,  1876),  144. 


158  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

were  illegal  votes.  Thus  far,  in  estimating  the  vote,  I  have  granted 
that  the  illegality  was  perpetrated  entirely  by  Missourians,  or  other 
Southerners,  which  was  by  no  means  the  case.  That  the  reader  may 
see  this,  since  the  original  record  cannot  be  seen  by  all,  and  that  he 
may  judge  for  himself  how  far  the  claims  for  violence  and  intimi 
dation  are  justified,  I  present  a  synopsis  of  the  evidence  taken  by 
the  Congressional  investigating  committee.  I  endeavor  here  to  give 
the  substance  of  what  each  witness  stated  as  best  reasonable  space 
will  allow.  I  give  the  leading  evidence  concerning  seven  districts; 
this  evidence  I  take  to  be  fairly  representative  of  the  whole.  "The 
most  shameless  fraud  was  practiced"  in  the  seventh  district,  says 
the  majority  report.  Not  an  illegal  vote  is  charged  against  the  first, 
third,  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  twelfth,  thirteenth,  or  seventeenth  dis 
trict. 

SECOND  DISTRICT. — Four  witnesses  were  examined. 

1.  Does  not  say  he  saw  a  single  illegal  vote,  and  saw  but  one  man  from 
Missouri. 

2.  Saw  one  illegal  voter,  but  does  not  say  for  whom  he  voted;   saw  no 
violence  or  intimidation. 

3.  This  witness  was  an  anti-slavery  candidate;  was  in  the  election  judges' 
room  all  day;  saw  "several"  (no  estimate)   illegal  voters,  some  of  whom  he 
names,  but  does  not  say  for  whom  they  voted. 

4.  Proves  nothing  for  either  side. 

FOURTH  DISTRICT. — Seven  witnesses  examined. 

1.  Saw  some  Missourians  who  said  they  had  voted;   does  not  say  how 
many  or  for  whom  they  voted,  but  says  they  were  hollowing  for  both  sides. 

2.  More  voters  on  the  poll-books,  in  estimation  of  the  witness,  than  legal 
resident  voters  in  the  district,  but  does  not  say  or  intimate  who  cast  the 
surplus  or  for  \vhom  they  were  cast. 

3.  Mentions  some  names  on  the  books  who,  he  says,  were  not  residents, 
but  says  not  a  word  about  illegal  votes  for  any  particular  side. 

4.  Heard  a  Missourian  say  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  Missourians  had 
voted;   heard  one  man  say  he  had  sent  twenty  of  them  to  vote;   witness 
speaks  from  hearsay  only. 

5.  Saw  eight  armed  Missourians  vote;  does  not  say  for  whom. 

6.  Witness  was  a  stranger;  saw  many  strangers  drunk;  did  not  pretend 
to  estimate  the  vote  or  say  for  whom  cast.     Heard  some  Missourians  say 
they  had  a  right  to  vote. 

7.  Heard  Missourians  say  they  had  been  to  the  Territory  and  had  voted. 
FIFTH  DISTRICT. — One  witness. 

1.  Saw  men  who  had  lived  in  Missouri  vote;  mentions  only  one  who  he 
says  yet  resided  there;  saw  others  of  them  who  had  claims  in  the  Territory 
and  who  insisted  on  the  right  to  vote. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  159 

SIXTH  DISTRICT. — One  witness. 

1.  One  hundred  Missourians  told  witness  they  had  voted;  did  not  say 
they  said  for  whom;  saw  "several  Eastern  Northern  free  State  abolition 
emigrants  who  intended  to  vote  and  then  leave  for  home."  (Evidence,  p. 
11.) 

SEVENTH  DISTRICT. — Read  notes  at  end  of  volume. 

1.  Several  pro-  and  anti-slavery  settlers  had  left  their  claims;  saw  some 
illegal  votes  from  Missouri;  no  estimate. 

ELEVENTH  DISTRICT  — No  evidence  taken. 

FOURTEENTH  DISTRICT. — Seven  witnesses. 

1.  Witness  was  an  election  judge  appointed  by  Governor  Reeder;  he  says 
one  of  his  associate  judges  was  a  Missourian,  but  that  there  was  "a  hand 
some  majority"  cast  by  legal  voters  for  the  Southern  candidate.     ( Evidence, 
p.  15.) 

2.  Not  one  word  about  illegal  votes  or  other  election  wrongs. 

3.  Saw   seven   Missourians'   names   on   the   poll-book;    does   not  say   for 
whom  they  voted. 

4.  Heard  the  same  seven  say  they  had  voted. 

5.  Saw  Missourians  at  election  who  said  they  voted;  no  estimate. 

6.  Witness  was  Mr.   Scott,  who  they  claimed  was  the  illegal  judge  be 
cause  he  lived  in  Missouri.     He  says  he  had  a  land  claim  in  the  Territory; 
that  he  took  the  required  oath  "and  faithfully  and  impartially  discharged 
his  duties."     (Evidence,  p.  930.)     He  says  those  Missourians  who  voted  felt 
it  was  thus  necessary  to  counteract  votes  sent  out  by  the  Emigrant  Aid 
Societies,  many  of  whom  openly  alleged  they  came  merely  to  vote,  not  to 
become  residents.      (Ib.,  932.)     No  where  is  Mr.  Scott's  evidence  questioned 
or  sought  to  be  impeached. 

7.  Witness  was  an  acting  justice  of  the  peace;   says  not  a  word  about 
illegality;  says  that  he  advised  the  crowd  that  under  the  Governor's  procla 
mation  each  man  had  a  right  to  decide  for  himself  whether  he  should  vote. 

FIFTEENTH  DISTRICT. — Eight  witnesses. 

1.  Witness  was  an  anti-slavery,  free  State   man;   "I  saw  but  two  Mis 
sourians  there  [voting  place]  that  I  know  by  name,  but  did  not  see  them 
vote." 

2.  Voted    for    Flenniken,    who    was    a   non-resident;    saw   but   two   Mis 
sourians  vote,  but  says  he  "thinks"  two  hundred  non-residents  voted. 

3.  Saw  two  or  three  Missourians  vote;   mentions  about  a  dozen  names, 
presumably  those  on  the  poll-books,  and  says,  "So  far  as  I  know  they  do 
not  live  in  Kansas."     Says  these  claimed  they  had  as  good  a  right  to  vote 
as  those  voters  sent  out  by  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies.     (Evidence,  p.  20.) 

4.  Tells  nothing. 

5.  Tells  nothing. 

6.  Did  not  vote  or  see  any  one  vote.     Valuable  witness! 

7.  Says  election  was  "orderly  and  quiet,"  but  witness  judges  there  are 
about  one  hundred  and  six  names  on  poll-books  not  residents.      (P.  1132.) 


160  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

8.  One  of  Governor  Reeder's  constables;  saw  ten  illegal  pro-slavery  votes 
and  one  illegal  Northern  or  free  State  vote.  Says  Flenniken's  [the  non 
resident  abolition  candidate]  nephew  was  on  the  ground  electioneering,  and 
was  "drunk  and  overbearing."  [Connelley,  whom  I  quoted  above,  must 
have  gotten  some  of  his  own  "whiskey-sodden"  men  mixed  with  the  Mis- 
sourians.]  "Both  sides  voted  as  peaceably  and  quietly  as  I  ever  saw  at  any 
election."  "The  Missourians  did  not  interfere  by  word  or  act."  (P.  376.) 

SIXTEENTH  DISTRICT. — Eight  witnesses. 

1.  "I  had  a  list  of  voters  at  that  election.     The  pro-slavery  party  had  a 
majority  in  this  district  ...  as  I  was  well  acquainted  with  the  voters  and 
made  out  a  list  with  others  who  knew  men  that  I  did  not  know;  and  this^ 
[majority]   was  the  result  after  giving  all  the  doubtful  votes  to  the  free 
State  party."      (P.   31.)      Pro-slavery  or  Southern  men  tried  to  keep  the 
polls  open  so  everybody  could  get  in.      (P.  30.) 

2.  This  witness  stated  positively  that  in  this  district  the  Southern  men 
had  a  majority;  says  there  was  no  trouble;  says  Flenniken,  the  Northern 
candidate  who  secured  the  second  highest   number  of   votes,   was   a   non 
resident.     (P.  26.) 

3.  Saw   some    Missourians    who   said    they    voted    because    non-resident 
Northern  men  had  done  so;  no  estimate  of  the  number.    He  says  of  voters 
he  knew  in  the  district  "General  Whitfield  received  a  majority."      (P.  30.) 

4.  Saw  much  crowding  near  the  voting  place,  but  one  side  was  kept  out 
as  much  as  the  other.    "I  saw  no  votes  given  in  that  day  that  I  knew  to  be 
illegal."     (P.  24.) 

5.  "I  went  to  the  election  with  six  or  seven  friends  of  Flenniken,  who 
all  had  pistols  and  bowie-knives."    No  one  was  prevented  from  voting.      (P. 
38.)       [Gracious!    from  reading  the  histories   one  would  think   that  only 
Missourians,  or  men  who  were  voting  for  Southern  candidates,  carried  such 
ornaments !  ] 

6.  Says  two  hundred  Missourians  voted  that  day;   free  State  men  had 
difficulty  to  get  to  the  polls.     (P.  37.) 

7.  "No  quarreling,  but  a  good  deal  of  crowding."      (P.  24.)      "General 
rumor  was  that  Flenniken  was  from  the  East  and  did  not"  reside  in  Kan 
sas.     Witness  says  he  voted  for  Wakefield  [a  very  outspoken  and  avowed 
abolition  candidate],  and  says  he  "was  not  frightened  at  all."     (P.  25.) 

8.  "As  quiet  an  election  as  I  ever  saw."     Both  sides  had  pistols  and  arms, 
but  no  more  than  were  common  at  that  day  on  the  frontiers.     No  violence 
offered  any  one;   saw  no  illegal   votes.      (P.   32.)      Southern  party  had  a 
large  majority  in  that  district. 

Such  is  the  evidence  concerning  this  first  Kansas  election.  What 
are  we  to  conclude?  This  evidence  was  taken  when  the  entire  affair 
was  fresh  in  the  mindfe  of  participants.  Its  vagueness  and  uncer 
tainty  cannot  fail  to  strike  even  the  more  prejudiced.  To  give  the 
evidence  the  benefit  of  every  suspicion  of  doubt,  the  best  we  can 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  161 

say  is  that  it  tends  to  prove  illegal  votes  something  as  follows 
against  the  Southern  side : 

Second   district 12 

Fourth   district 150 

Fifth  district 100 

Sixth  district 5 

Fourteenth  district 7 

Fifteenth   district 10 

Sixteenth   district.  ,  .  .200 


Total 484 

Eead  the  evidence  carefully,  and  these  figures  will  be  seen  to  be 
strongly  liberal.  That  number  of  illegal  votes  is  by  no  means 
proven.  But  where  there  is  an  intimation,  however  unreliable  it 
may  be,  that  there  are  anything  like  so  many  illegal  votes  I  grant 
them  in  the  above  figures,  and  at  the  same  time  I  grant  that  all  of 
them  were  cast  for  the  Southern  side.  But  in  fact,  I  repeat,  such 
was  not  the  case.  The  smallest  boy  who  might  chance  to  read  this 
would  readily  understand  that  if  there  had  been  real  proof  of  il 
legality,  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  even  anything  tending  to  show 
greater  illegality,  this  committee  would  have  found  it.  That  was 
its  business.  It  had  gone  out  to  prove  the  illegality  of  this  election, 
as  well  as  that  of  others.  The  best,  most  reliable,  most  trustworthy 
evidence  was  undoubtedly  adduced.  Justification  for  acts  which 
followed  this  election  depended  upon  proving  its  illegality.  The 
Congressional  committee,  Dr.  Eobinson,  Eli  Thayer,  a  moving  spirit 
in  the  emigrant  aid  movement,  and  one  of  the  strongest  Northern 
partisans  of  that  day,  and  everybody  else,  admit  legality  in  the  pre 
cincts  not  here  examined.  It  was  certified  that  General  Whitfield 
had  received  2,238  votes  (supra)  ;  deduct  the  484,  and  we  have 
1,754.  The  total  combined  votes  for  all  the  Northern,  abolition,  or 
anti-slavery  candidates,  were  575.  Deduct  this  from  the  legal 
Southern  vote,  and  it  leaves  1,179  clear  majority  for  Southern 
views :  or,  the  General's  plurality  over  Flenniken,  the  next  highest 
candidate,  was  874.  Where  do  the  other  one  thousand  seven  hun 
dred  and  twenty-nine  votf£  which  Eobinson,  following  the  majority 
of  the  Congressional  committee,  and  others  say  were  "estimated" 
11 


162  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

as  illegal  get  their  illegality?  IT  DOES  NOT  ARISE  FROM 
THE  EVIDENCE;  NO  CREDIBLE  HISTORIAN  CAN  JUS 
TIFY  A  CLAIM  OF  FRAUD  OR  INTIMIDATION  WHICH 
EFFECTED  THE  LEGALITY  OF  THIS  ELECTION. 

Very  much  more  depends,  in  summing  up  the  positions  occupied 
by  the  North  and  the  South,  upon  leaving  the  impression  that  "bor 
der  ruffianism"  thrust  Southern  illegality  upon  inoffensive  Northern 
settlers  in  Kansas,  than  one  is  liable  to  think  on  a  superficial  glance. 
The  justification  for  secession  finds  some  of  its  strongest  arguments 
from  the  movements  of  the  North  shortly  before  and  for  years  after 
the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Those  historians  who  have 
determined  to  hold  over  the  South  an  undeserved  odium  have  not 
been  slow  to  appreciate  this  fact.  This  is  one  reason  why  it  is  that, 
in  the  face  of  the  truth,  some  of  those  who  write  school  text-books 
have  been  by  no  means  alone  in  misstating  or  garbling  Kansas  his 
tory.  For  instance,  so  prominent  a  historian  as  James  Schouler, 
concerning  the  result  of  this  first  Kansas  election,  has  said,  "Whit- 
field,  a  Tennesseean,  who  held  the  office  of  Indian  agent,  was  chosen 
by  fraudulent  ballots."35  This  language  is  susceptible  of  no  other 
fair  construction  than  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fraudulent 
votes,  General  Whitfield  would  not  have  been  elected.  Mr.  Rhodes 
admits  the  election  of  Whitfield,  but  fellow's  the  plan  inaugurated 
by  Sherman  and  Howard  in  their  report  to  Congress,  and  tries  to 
leave  the  impression  that  this  election  was  not  due  to  a  Southern 
majority,  but  to  the  fact  that  Northerners  took  so  little  interest  they 
failed  to  vote  !321  But  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  admits  that  the  North 
ern  voters  at  this  election  of  November  29,  1854,  were  in  a  "real  mi 
nority/'322 

The  action  of  Governor  Reeder  in  delaying  the  election  of  the 
Territorial  legislature  was  not  fully  seen  until  future  events  made  it 
patent.  That  he  was  party  to  a  cunningly  devised  scheme  to  cap 
ture  for  the  North  the  Kansas  Territory,  the  fact  that  the  legisla 
tive  election  was  not  called  at  the  time  that  that  for  a  Congressional 
representative  was,  together  with  his  after  life,  fully  show.  In  the 
first  place,  he  delayed  unnecessarily  the  organization  of  the  Terri- 


320History  U.  S.,  (Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1891),  Vol.  V.,  327. 
•"Rhodes,  History  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  80. 
^History  U.  S.  (1895),  Vol.  III.,  22-3. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  163 

tory.  He  was  commissioned  June  29,  1854,  just  twenty-nine  days 
after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  He  did  not  go  to 
the  Territory  until  November.  In  his  special  message  to  Congress, 
January  24,  1856,  the  President  called  attention  to  this  delay,  and 
showed  its  tardiness  by  comparing  it  with  Nebraska,  created  by  the 
same  bill,  which  was  organized  and  at  work  before  Kansas  was  at 
tempted.  The  delay  was  to  allow  Northern  emigrants,  sent  out  by 
the  aid  societies,  to  reach  the  Territory.  The  failure  to  order  for  an 
earlier  day  the  election  of  a  legislature  had  this  same  object,  and  he 
also  saw  that  if  the  legislature  had  been  elected  November  29,  1854, 
its  legality  would  have  gone  at  once  and  immediately  before  Con 
gress  in  determining  the  election  of  the  Congressional  representa 
tive.  To  all  of  which  the  President  called  the  attention  of  Con 
gress.323  But  the  strength  of  this  party,  the  free-State  abolition 
party,  the  party  destined  to  nominate  and  elect  Lincoln,  was  not  yet 
sufficient  in  Congress  to  justify  relying  upon  it  too  strongly ;  so  the 
election  for  Territorial  legislators  was  delayed  until  the  following 
March,  nearly  one  year  after  the  act  of  Congress  organizing  the 
Territory.  Gigantic  schemes,  the  product  of  brain  stimulated  by 
unholy  ambitions, — of  minds  afire  from  misguided  consciences, — 
were  being  planned;  caution  marked  the  craftiness  of  the  pro 
jectors. 


323Congressional  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  297. 


IX. 

THE    KANSAS   LEGISLATURE    AND   OVERT 
NORTHERN  REBELLION. 

The  Kansas  Territorial  election  of  March  30,  1855,  and  its  at 
tendant  and  consequent  results,  were  the  most  significant  local 
events  in  the  ante-bellum  struggle  between  the  North  and  the  South. 
The  reception  given  its  results  proves  that  the  agitation  of  slavery 
was  carried  on  by  those  who  hoped  thus  to  secure  political  pre 
dominance  for  Northern  Congressional  power.  Had  the  North 
continued  to  hold  an  equal  or  greater  sway  in  national  politics,  few 
would  have  been  the  political  agitators  for  "a  free  State"  in  the 
United  States;  and  the  stormy  and  treacherous  period  in  Kansas 
history  would  never  have  marred  a  page. 

At  the  time  of  this  election,  Governor  Reeder,  a  Pennsylvanian, 
was  yet  in  the  gubernatorial  chair.  He  prescribed,  pursuant  to  the 
act  organizing  the  Territory,  some  rules  for  the  conduct  of  this 
election  more  strict  than  those  for  the  first  election.  He  announced 
somewhat  more  plainly  the  requirements  to  be  met  to  entitle  one  to 
vote.  The  most  important  was  a  requirement  of  bona  fide  citizen 
ship  in  the  Territory  with  actual  intent  to  continue  permanently. 
Owing  to  the  newness  of  the  country,  no  time  limit  had  been  im 
posed  other  than  this.  He  added  one  election  district,  making 
eighteen.  There  were  two  classes  of  those  who  would  compose  the 
legislative  body.  As  is  well  known,  every  State  legislative  body, 
like  Congress,  is  composed  of  two  branches,  upper  ( in  Congress  this 
is  the  Senate)  and  lower  (in  Congress  the  House  of  Representa 
tives)  ;  in  the  State  we  commonly  call  these  bodies  State  Senate  and 
State  House  of  Representatives ;  or,  the  two  considered  as  one :  the 
legislature.  In  this  first  Kansas  election  for  Territorial  legislature, 
the  Senators  were  called  Co>uncilmen,  as  they  were  in  the  previous 
new  Territories,  and  the  other  body  was  called  by  the  common 
name  of  Representatives.  There  were  also  other  divisions  of  the 
Territory;  there  were  fourteen  districts,  which  were  nearly  the 
same  as  the  voting  districts,  called  representative  districts;  and 
there  were  ten  larger  districts  called  Council  (or  Senate)  districts. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  165 

The  election  was  held,  the  returns  made  by  the  proper  officers,  and 
properly  returned  to  the  governor.  The  Southern  ticket,  commonly 
called  the  pro-slavery  ticket,  in  a  large  majority  and  with  slight 
exception,  was  declared  elected.  Governor  Seeder  and  his  asso 
ciates  examined  the  election  returns  and  issued  certificates  of  elec 
tion  to  all  except  a  few  of  the  pro-slavery  candidates;  uand  thus 
complete  legality  wras  given  to  the  first  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
Territory/'  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  pointed  out  in  a 
special  message  to  Congress.324  These  men  who  held  certificates  of 
e]ection  Governor  Eeeder  officially  convened,  "and  communicated 
with  them  officially  after  they  were  organized  and  recognized  them 
as  a  legally  and  properly  constituted  law-making  body."  Their 
first  sessions  were  held  at  Pawnee,  beginning  July  2,  1855;  from 
Pawnee  they  removed  to  Leeompton,  wrhere  they  passed  laws  and 
adopted  a  constitution  upon  which  the  Territory  afterward  asked 
for  admission  as  a  State  in  the  Federal  Union.  Hence,  it  is  gen 
erally  called  the  Leeompton  constitution.  Shortly  after  the  con 
vening  of  the  legislative  body,  in  August,  1855,  Governor  Reeder 
was  removed  from  office  by  the  President. 

In  armed,  organized,  open,  notorious  rebellion  against  this  offi 
cially  constituted  and  legally  recognized  body,  the  free-State  or 
abolition  people  met  at  Topeka  (September  19th  and  October  4, 
1855),  and  adopted  a  constitution,  organized  a  government,  pur 
suant  to  which  this  Northern  party  alone  elected  a  body  they  called 
a  legislature,  and  pledged  each  other  their  lives  and  honor  to  stand 
by  this  action  and  to  resist  to  death  what  they  termed  the  "bogus 
legislature."  Hence,  the  legality  of  the  body  commonly  called  the 
pro-slavery  or  authorized  legislature,  which  had  been  convened  by 
Governor  Reeder  in  Pawnee  and  which  removed  to  Leeompton,  be 
comes  a  matter  of  national  importance;  because,  if  legal,  then  those 
who,  in  numbers  and  openly,  resisted  the  laws  of  that  body  and  did 
violence  to  its  personnel,  were  in  rebellion ;  and  all  w7ho  aided  or  en 
couraged  in  any  way,  such  as  by  furnishing  arms,  money,  or  moral 
support,  were  particeps  criminis — equally  and  if  possible  more 
guilty  than  the  actors  themselves. 

Hence,  in  our  inquiry  into  the  regularity  and  legality  of  the  offi 
cially  recognized  and  first  Kansas  legislature,  we  shall  proceed  with 
our  examination  of  the  witness  wre  have  alreadv  had  on  the  stand, 


'"Congressional  Globe.  1  sess.,  34  Cong.,  297. 


166  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

the  one  introduced  to  us  by  Robinson,  Rhodes,  and  other  Northern 
writers— the  evidence  filed  by  the  investigating  committee  sent  out 
by  Congress.  This  and  various  other  Government  documents  really 
are  the  most  reliable  sources  of  information  extant. 

Unfortunately,  it  will  not  be  improper  to  repeat,  the  claims  of 
Hons.  Howard  and  Sherman,  who  made  what  we  call  the  majority 
report,  are  not  always  borne  out  by  the  evidence;  and,  so,  many  of 
their  statements  are  extremely  unreliable.  I  have  already  called  at 
tention  to  the  fact  that  many  thousands  of  this  report,  unaccom 
panied  by  either  the  minority  report  or  the  evidence,  were  scattered 
throughout  the  North ;  and  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  this  ex  parte 
distribution  of  the  document  did  no  little  harm.  Of  course,  such 
writers  as  Dr.  Robinson,  Eli  Thayer,  Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale 
(whose  recent  advanced  birthday  marks  many  years  of  much  use 
fulness),  and  the  others  of  their  co-laborers  who  were  prominent 
actors  in  the  great  drama  under  investigation,  have  no  interest  in 
telling  the  whole  story,  but  do  have  reasons  for  letting  the  asser 
tions  of  the  majority  report  stand  as  original  and  accurate  sources 
of  history.  Notice,  too,  how  some  of  the  statements  of  Messrs.  Sher 
man  and  Howard  read  like  some  histories.  Undoubtedly,  in  their 
report  we  find  the  source  of  the  usual  inaccuracy  of  statement  and 
conclusion  touching  the  Northern  attitude  as  manifested  through 
her  work  in  Kansas.  Among  other  things  said  concerning  the  elec 
tion  in  question,  they  say  that  companies  of  men  from  Missouri 
"were  arranged  in  regular  parties,  and  sent  into  every  council  dis 
trict  in  the  Territory,  and  into  every  representative  district  but 
one.  The  numbers  were  so  distributed  as  to  control  the  elec 
tion  in  each  district/'31  But  other  admissions  tend  to  im 
peach  their  own  'statements.  In  discussing  the  tenth  election 
district  they  say,  "This  and  the  eighth  district  formed  one 
representative  district,  and  was  the  only  one  in  which  the  in 
vasion  from  Missouri  did  not  extend."  And  in  discussing  the 
twelfth  district  they  say,  "The  election  in  this  district  was  con 
ducted  fairly;  no  complaint  was  made  that  illegal  votes  were 
cast."3'  Under  the  head  "seventeenth  district,"  page  29,  they  say, 
"The  election  in  this  district  seems  to  have  been  fairly  conducted, 
and  [is]  not  contested  at  all.  In  this  district  the  pro-slavery  party 

325Majority  Report,  9  ;  Rep.  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  III.,  p.  4. 
23. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  167 

had  the  majority."327  Neither  the  evidence  gathered  by  this  inves 
tigating  committee,  nor  any  reliable  historical  source,  bears  out  the 
charges  of  fraud,  intimidation,  and  illegality  brought  against  Mis- 
sourians  or  the  Southern  people.  The  depositions  of  the  hundreds 
of  witnesses  upon  the  validity  of  this  and  other  elections  make  in 
teresting  reading,  but  even  an  abridgment  would  carry  us  much 
beyond  the  limits  of  this  discussion.  But  enough  can  be  shown  to 
see  the  legality,  lawfulness,  and  fairness  of  the  election  of  the  Le- 
compton  legislature,  which  was  commissioned,  convened,  and  recog 
nized  by  the  then  rightful  Territorial  governor.  As  in  the  first 
election,  so  in  this, — there  was  fraudulent  voting;  but  as  in  the 
first  election,  so  in  this, — abolitionists  took  the  initiative,  and 
Southern  men  felt  self-defense  justified  their  action.  However,  we 
do  not  stop  here  to  apologize  for  the  action  of  the  Southerners ;  the 
unimpeachable  fact  still  remains  that  the  illegal  votes  cast  did  not 
change  the  result;  the  Lecompton  legislature  was  chosen  by  bona 
fide  legal  voters;  and  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  not 
a  man  was  intimidated  or  prevented  from  voting  in  the  entire  Ter 
ritory  in  connection  with  this  election. 

Mr.  Oliver,  author  of  the  minority  report,  presents  "compiled 
tables,  comparing  the  votes  cast  for  the  Free-State  ticket  in  the  sev 
eral  council  districts  and  representative  districts  in  the  Territory. 
This  is  taken  from  tables  exhibited  by  the  majority.  It  is  part  of 
their  own  showing.  In  it  will  be  seen  the  number  of  votes  cast  in 
each  district  for  the  Free-State  tickets,  compared  with  the  number 
of  votes  at  the  time  the  census  was  taken  in  each  respectively ;  and 
from  this  it  will  appear  that  the  Free-State  votes  fell  far  short  of 
being  sufficient  to  elect  a  majority  in  either  branch  of  the  legisla 
ture,  even  if  there  had  been  no  increase  of  [Southern]  votes  by  bona 
fide  settlers,  between  the  time  the  census  was  taken  and  the  elec 
tion.  [It  will  be  remembered  that  no  one  then  or  -since  ever  claimed 
more  Free- State  votes  than  were  reported.  The  charge  was  that 
more  Southerners  than  were  entitled  to  vote  had  voted.] 

"But  the  current  testimony  of  a  number  of  witnesses  establishes 
the  fact  conclusively  .  .  .  that  the  emigration  of  bona  fide  settlers 
from  the  Southern  States  was  greater  in  the  month  of  March  after 
the  census  was  taken  than  in  any  equal  time  previous."35 


327Minority  Report,  73. 
328Minority  Report,  74. 


168 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 


It  will  be  remembered  that  a  majority  of  this  committee  admit, 
and  so  do  Dr.  Robinson  and  by  far  the  greater  number  of  all 
writers,  that  at  the  first  election  the  Southern  people  were  in  the 
majority.  After  this  first  election  Governor  Reeder  took  a  census, 
and  claimed  to  have  reported  the  number  of  legal  votes  in  eacfy  dis 
trict.  If  we  grant  that  each  vote  returned  for  the  free-States  can 
didate  was  legal,  the  table  above  mentioned  establishes  clearly  that 
the  majority  of  the  votes  shown  to  be  bona  fide  by  this  census,  taken 
as  it  was  by  Northern  sympathizers,  was  cast  for  the  Southern  men, 
who  were  afterward  convened  in  the  Lecompton  legislature.  Here 
is  the  table : 


Repre- 
istricts. 

£jg! 

ll. 

U 

G. 

0 

fi 
3 

o 

15  ci 

l£ 

|| 

a 

s 

a 

•gfl 

<>-i  0O   ' 

»•<  o  5 

«,_ 

CJ 

*-<  o5 

'o  ° 

V-c 

°® 

>» 

Ov".2 

o  w 

ODD 

°  •*  ,, 

° 

(H  ^ 

t-i  rt  .0 

—     fn 

o^"S 

tH   "O 

^N     fH  -O 

fc-  SH     • 

*•>  d 

,a"c$ 

•°  &X3 

5  S.2 

^s 

:D  ^  j- 

Q^  2 

S| 

Sl 

go  o 

s  ^.s 

c  fi  2 

C  "in 

fl  O  O  » 

s  •-^ 

K* 

g«g 

ITS* 

^CC< 

1° 

3*5  <U  W 

gfiS 

Is 

1 

97 

19 

1 

1 

466 

255 

2 

2 

369 

253 

3 

2 

212 

12 

1 

3 

212 

12 

2 

3 

193 

44 

1 

4 

101 

4 

1 

4 

442 

156 

2 

5 

92 

49 

1 

5 

253 

1 

6 

253 

35 

2 

6 

201 

140 

1 

7 

242 

152 

4 

7 

247 

1 

8 

99 

120 

1 

8 

215 

60 

1 

9 

102 

26 

1 

9 

208 

1 

10 

83 

1 

10 

468 

66 

2 

11 

47 

54 

2 

12 

215 

2 

13 

203 

2 

14 

335 

59 

3 

"Thife  shows  that  the  aggregate  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  Territory 
for  the  Free- State  ticket  fell  short  of  800,  while  the  census  shows 
tha.t  there  were  2,905  legal  votes  in  the  Territory  in  the  February 
previous.  The  Free-State  ticket,  therefore,  did  not  receive  one-third 
of  the  legal  votes  of  the  Territory,  even  if  all  be  excluded  from  the 
account  who  emigrated  to  the  Territory  after  the  census  was  taken. 

"This  fact  was  apparent  to  the  majority  of  the  committee.  But 
they  attempted  to  break  its  force  in  two  ways:  by  comparing  the 
names  on  the  poll-books  with  those  of  the  census  returns,  from 
which  comparison  they  argue  that  only  a  fraction  over  1,300  of  the 
legal  voters  upon  the  census  returns  voted  at  that  election.  And, 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  169 

second,  they  argue  that  the  abolitionists  were  prevented  from  voting 
by  violence,  threats,  and  intimidation. 

"On  the  first  point,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  more  than  that  no 
comparison  between  the  poll-books  and  the  census  return  was  made 
except  by  districts.  Between  the  time  of  taking  the  census  and  the 
election,  settlers  had  changed  their  residence  from  one  part  of  the 
Territory  to  another,  and  doubtless  [which  can  now  be  shown  to 
be  exactly  correct]  voted  in  a  different  place  from  that  in  which 
they  were  registered  when  the  census  was  taken.  [As  they  legally 
had  a  right  to  do,  and  which,  in  fact,  they  did  do.]  The  committee 
did  not  compare  the  names  on  the  poll-books  with  the  names  on  the 
census  returns  throughout  the  Territory,  and  the  comparison  al 
luded  to  by  the  majority,  therefore,  by  no  means  proves  what  they 
claim  for  it. 

"On  the  second  point  .  .  .  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  violence 
was  resorted  to,  or  force  [or  intimidation]  emplo}^ed  by  which  men 
were  prevented  from  voting  at  a  single  election  precinct  in  the  Ter 
ritory,  or  that  there  was  any  greater  disturbance  at  any  election  pre 
cinct  than  frequently  occurs  in  all  our  State  elections  in  exciting 
times."329 

One  reason  why  the  free-State  vote  was  not  larger  in  this  elec 
tion  was  shown  to  be  because  many  free-State  men  voted  the 
Southern  ticket.  For  instance,  on  page  160  of  the  evidence, 
a  prominent  and  honorable  witness  says,  "I  know  a  great  many 
Free-State  men  who  voted  that  day  the  Pro-Slavery  Southern 
ticket.  ...  I  saw  them  vote  myself."  This  is  not  hearsay; 
it  is  positive;  and  motet  of  all,  it  is  significant.  In  the  first 
election  the  Southern  men  were  and  are  admitted  to  have  been  in 
the  majority  and  to  have  elected  their  ticket;  and  at  this  election 
they  draw  strength  from  the  enemy. 

After  his  removal  from  office  in  August,  1855,  Governor  Eeeder 
began  to  consort  with  the  abolitionists  who  were  holding  conven 
tions,  and  organizing  an  opposition  government  which  passed  pseudo 
laws,  and  attempted  to  crush  the  legal  government  by  force.  He 
then  publicly  denounced  the  very  legislature  which  he  had  so  re 
cently  acknowledged.  The  now  ex-governor,  and  Doctor  C.  Kobin- 
son,  and  others,  decided  that  they  could  succeed,  since  the  failure 
of  their  fraudulent  efforts  at  the  polls,  as  we  shall  see  later,  only 

329Minority  Report.  74-75. 


170  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

by  forming  a  free-State  constitution,,  and  securing  the  aid  of  the 
Xorth  to  enforce  and  carry  out  to  the  "bloody  issue"  their  posi 
tion.330  The  ex-governor  consented,  or  most  likely  sought,  to  be 
come  a  candidate  for  Congress  under  the  usurping  abolitionists. 
At  the  election  which  they  illegally  held,  and  in  which  abolitionists 
or  Northern  free-State  people  only  participated,  he  was  said  to  have 
been  elected. 

On  August  1,  1856,  eighty-eight  of  the  Eepublicans  in  Congress, 
who  were  either  conniving  at  or  abetting  the  Kansas  illegalities, 
"voted  for  the  admission  of  Andrew  H.  Reeder  as  a  delegate  from 
Kansas,  although  he  had  received  at  the  election  authorized  by  law 
not  a  solitary  vote."3'  A  letter  written  by  Reeder,  found  on  the 
streets  of  a  Kansas  town,  and  which  neither  he,  the  party  to  whom 
it  was  written,  nor  any  one  else,  ever  attempted  to  disprove,  is  an 
open  confession  meant  to  be  private  that  this  opposition  to  the  Le- 
compton  Territorial  government,  was  sedition.  Even  the  ring 
leaders  in  this  rebellion  never  sincerely  questioned  the  validity  of 
the  Lecompton  legislature.  In  the  letter  in  question  Reeder  said, 
"As  to  putting  a  set  of  laws  in  operation  in  opposition  to  the  Ter 
ritorial  government,  my  opinion  is  confirmed  instead  of  being 
shaken;  .  .  .  We  will  be,  so  far  as  legality  is  concerned,  in  the 
wrong:  and  that  is  no  trifle  in  so  critical  a  state  of  things,  and  in 
view  of  such  bloody  consequences.  .  .  .  They  [the  United  States 
authorities]  say  they  cannot  sustain  us  in  the  position  of  resisting 
the  Territorial  government;  and  you  will  find,  I  think,  that  Douglas 
will  also  take  that  ground.  But  I  want  you  to  understand,  most 
distinctly,  that  I  do  not  talk  thus  to  the  public,  or  to  our  enemies. 
I  may  speak  my  plain  and  private  opinions  in  letters  to  our  friends 
in  Kansas,  for  it  is  my  duty;  but  to  the  public,  as  you  will  see  by 
my  published  letter,  I  show  no  divided  front."3' 

The  reasoning  of  the  majority  of  the  Congressional  investigat 
ing  committee  in  order  to  find  fraudulent  votes  from  the  election 
returns  as  compared  with  the  census,  is  most  interesting  and  without 
a  parallel  in  sophistry.  It  shows-  the  desperation  of  the  case  for 
these  rebels  when  it  is  seen  how  they  hugged  to  the  census  taken  in 
January  and  February,  from  one  to  nearly  two  months  prior  to  the 

330See  deposition,  Evidence,  87. 

331Repts.  of  Commits.,  1  sess.,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  255,  p.  44  ;  Journal   Ho. 
Rep.,  August,  1856. 
332Evidence,  1134. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  171 

election.  Since  their  contention  was  not  borne  out  by  the  proof, 
something  must  be  found,  and  so  they  deduct  from  the  number  of 
votes  returned  by  the  election  officers,  the  number  of  votes  which 
the  census  enumerator  said  were  in  each  district,  and  insist  that 
the  difference  are  the  illegal  votes,  which  they  claim  were  cast  by 
Missouri  ruffians.  There  might  have  been  some  shadow  of  reason 
in  this  for  a  country  whose  voting  population  was  not  changing  as 
was  that  of  Kansas.  When  we  remember  that  both  the  evidence 
taken  by  the  Congressional  committee  and  all  early  and  late  histo 
rians  admit  that  at  the  first  election  the  Southern  people  were  in 
the  majority,  and  then  remember  that  a  large  immigration  got  to 
the  Territory  in  time  to  become  bona  fide  settlers  and  legal  voters, 
we  at  once  see  that  the  claim  for  this  large  illegal  vote  is  entirely 
untenable.  More  than  this ;  Wm.  Phillips,  at  the  time  located  in 
Kansas  as  the  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tribune  (he  and  his 
paper  both  strong  abolitionists),  in  his  book  published  in  1856, 
speaking  of  this  same  election,  says,  "By  the  30th  of  March  many 
spring  emigrants  could,  and  did,  get  into  the  territory,  while  but 
very  little  of  the  Eastern  [abolition]  emigration  got  to  the  territory 
until  late  in  the  season."32  Speaking  of  the  same  census  Mr.  Phil 
lips  also  says,  "There  were  only  2,905  votes  in  the  territory  when 
the  census  was  taken,  but  as  the  election  occurred  on  the  30th  of 
March,  the  population  had  considerably  increased/'334  Phillips  con 
tinued  to  remain  a  citizen  of  Kansas,  and,  many  years  after  he  wrote 
this,  was  elected  one  of  the  Kansas  representatives  to  Congress; 
Noble  L.  Prentiss  says  he  was  the  "best  known  member  of  the  Tri-  • 
bune  staff."335 

Eev.  Richard  Cordley,  writing,  after  years  spent  among  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  from  both  personal  knowledge  and  information,  in 
1895,  says,  "This  number  [2,905,  as  reported  by  the  census]  was 
probably  increased  by  March  30th,  as  immigration  began  very  early, 
and  quite  a  number  of  actual  settlers  came  into  the  country  before 
the  election."338 

In  the  evidence  gathered  by  the  investigating  committee  we  find  , 
some  valuable  light  which  shows  that  a  large  number  of  former  Mis- 
sourians  had  moved  early  into  the  Territory,  but  were  away  from 

^Conquest  of  Kansas,  70. 

•"Ib.,  69. 

^'Kan.  Miscellanies,  95. 

836A  History  of  Lawrence,  Kans.,  28. 


172  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

their  new  homes  when  the  census  enumerators  were  at  work.  This 
accounts  for  the  names  of  many  former  Missourians  on  the  poll- 
books  whose  names  did  not  appear  in  the  census  returns,  and  who 
were  bona  fide  residents  of  the  Territory  and  legal  voters.  Under 
his  oath  an  ex-justice  of  the  peace  under  Reeder,  and  who  came  to 
Kansas  from  Minnesota,  says,  "The  people  were  also  dissatisfied  in 
regard  to  the  time  when  the  census  was  taken,  which  was  in  mid 
winter,  when  many  of  the  actual  residents  were  in  Missouri,  to  pass 
the  cold  weather  and  settle  up  their  business,  intending  to  return 
into  the  Territory  in  the  spring;  and  those  persons  were  not 
enumerated  in  the  census  that  was  taken,  because  the  census  takers 
said  the  governor  had  ordered  them  to  take  the  names  of  none  but 
those  then  in  the  Territory."337 

And  more  yet:  The  election  officers  who  received  and  certified 
the  votes,  in  both  these  early  and  Northern  challenged  elections, 
were  largely  composed  of  abolition  or  free-State  men.  Especially 
was  this  true  in  the  second  election  March  30th,  at  which  the  legis 
lature,  which  was  repudiated  by  the  North,  was  elected.  In  this 
election  two  of  the  three  election  officers  at  each  voting  place  were 
free-State  men.  This  accounts  for  the  large  illegal  Emigrant  Aid 
vote  cast  by  men  just  from  the  North ;  and  it  leaves  no  doubt  as  to 
the  absence  of  fraud  by  the  Southern  party  in  conducting  the  elec 
tion,  and  gave  to  the  Northern  party  every  reasonable  opportunity 
to  prove  intimidation  at  or  about  the  polls.  Certificates  of  election 
to  all  the  members  of  the  authorized  or  Lecompton  legislature,  ex 
cept  the  few  whose  election  Governor  Reeder  set  aside,  were  issued 
upon  the  authority  of  and  by  virtue  of  the  returns  of  men  about 
three-fourths  of  whom  were  opposed  to  the  Southern  party.  In  his 
deposition  before  the  Congressional  committee,  Governor  Reeder 
says  that  he  took  especial  care  to  see  that  at  such  places  as  he  an 
ticipated  illegal  Missouri  votes,  two  of  the  three  election  officers 
should  be  of  the  Northern  or  anti-slavery  party;  and  that  about  one- 
third  only  of  the  officers  throughout  the  Territory  on  that  day  were 
pro-slavery  men.338 

Concerning  this  election  of  March  30th,  some  very  distinguished 
Northern  writers  have  given  us  some  very  strange  things.  Not  the 
least  of  the  strange  statements  is  found  from  the  pen  of  Edward 


337Evidence,  526. 

338See  his  statement  in  Evidence,  935. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  173 

Charming,  Ph.  D.,  assistant  professor  of  history  in  the  Harvard 
University.  He  has  this  to  say :  "At  all  events,  the  majority  of  the 
bona  fide  settlers  were  favorable  to  freedom.  To  counteract  their 
votes,  hundreds  of  Missourians  crossed  the  border  into  Kansas  to 
vote.  The  upshot  of  the  whole  matter  was  that  the  free-state  voters 
refused  to  vote.  The  territorial  legislature  thus  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  pro-slavery  men" ;  which  result,  he  further  says,  "was  brought 
about  by  fraud  and  intimidation."83  Notice  his  language:  "The 
majority  of  the  bona  fide  settlers."  This  leaves  the  impression  that 
such  majority  existed  first,  last,  and  at  every  election ;  if  this  is  what 
he  means  to  say,  it  is  a  very  unjust  and  inaccurate  statement.  But 
it  is  not  the  strangest  thing  he  seems  to  say.  "The  free-state  voters 
refused  to  vote" — "the  legislature  thus  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
pro-slavery  men."  Does  Doctor  Channing  mean  to  say  that  the 
free-State  voters,  owing  to  Southern  fraud  and  intimidation,  re 
fused  to  vote  in  the  Territorial  legislative  election  ?  I  submit  that 
his  words  are  susceptible  of  no  other  reasonable  construction.  The 
inaccuracy — be  it  a  result  of  want  of  knowledge  of  the  facts  or  a 
result  of  hasty  research  or  what  it  may — is  so  unjust  to  a  correct  es 
timation  of  the  history  of  that  period — so  misleading  at  least  in  its 
manner  of  statement — that  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  South  points  a 
finger  of  interrogation  at  the  way  some  writers  have  mangled  her 
history. 

E.  Benj.  Andrews  thus  arraigns  the  Missourians  for  their  con 
duct  in  this  election : 

"The  vote  against  them  [Northern  settlers]  on  the  last  occasion, 
however,  was  largely  deposited  by  Missourians  who  came  across  the 
border  on  election  day,  voted,  and  returned.  This  was  demonstrated 
by  the  fact  that  there  were  but  2,905  legal  votes  in  the  Territory  at 
the  time,  while  5,427  votes  were  cast  for  the  pro-slavery  candidates 
alone."34  This  shows  inaccuracy,  to  say  the  least  of  it;  because 
(1)  he  ignores  the  fact  that  the  2,905  votes  were  those  which  the 
census  had  found,  or  claimed  to  have  found,  and  that  this  census 
was  taken,  over  part  of  the  Territory  at  least,  thirty  to  fifty  days 
prior  to  the  election ;  and  that  from  that  time  up  to  the  election 
numerous  bona  fide  settlers  arrived,  and  as  I  have  elsewhere  men 
tioned,  that  there  was  evidence  to  show  that  this  immigration  was 

339The  United   States  of  America  (Macmillans,  1896),  248. 
340IIistory  U.  S.   (1895),  Vol.  III.,  223. 


174  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

largely  Southern.  Hence,  to  say  "2,905  legal  voters  at  the  time/7  is 
incorrect;  (2)  he  takes  the  "estimate"  of  illegal  votes  as  esti 
mated — not  proven,  mind  you — by  the  majority  of  the  Congres 
sional  investigating  committee,  and  the  value  of  this  majority  re 
port  I  hope  will  be  correctly  determined  by  the  time  I  shall  have 
done  with  it.  Mr.  Schouler  has  fallen  into  a  similar  error.341 

There  is  no  ground  for  the  claim  sometimes  made  that  Governor 
Eeeder  issued  certificates  of  election  to  the  pro-slavery  men  who 
claimed  the  election  o.f  March  30th  because  he  feared  to  refuse; 
because  he  did  carefully  examine  the  returns  and  all  facts  connected 
therewith.  In  doing  this  he  thought  he  detected  fraud  in  some  of 
the  districts,  and  accordingly  set  aside  the  elections  in  those  dis 
tricts,  and  order  that  the  vacancies  be  filled  by  another  election 
which  he  appointed  to  be  held  May  22,  1855.  Mr.  Schouler  men 
tions  this  fact,  and  then  says,  "At  supplementary  elections,  held 
on  the  22d  of  May,  the  free-State  men  easily  filled  the  vacancies 
by  men  of  their  own  choice.  But  the  territorial  legislature  still 
stood  pro-slavery  by  more  than  two  to  one."342  To  say  that  I  am  as 
tonished  at  this  statement  does  not  describe  my  surprise.  Such  his 
tories  from  so  high  authority  go  out  into  the  world  potent  factors 
in  forming  public  opinion.  Naturally  the  inference  is  that  if  so 
soon  after  March  30th  Northern  men  carried  important  districts 
then,  under  similar  circumstances,  they  should  have  done  so  at  the 
previous  election,  and  hence  were  a  lona  fide  majority.  As  a  whole, 
this  supplementary  election  can  be  taken  as  indicating  nothing 
whatever  as  to  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties.  This  is 
undoubtedly  true  because  Southerners  refused  to  vote  except  in  the 
sixteenth  district,  at  Leavenworth.  This  action  was  based  upon 
their  claim  that  Governor  Eeeder  had  in  some  way  exceeded  his  au 
thority  in  setting  aside  the  former  election.  Whether  they  were 
right  or  wrong  in  this  contention  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  results 
of  the  voting.  We  have  the  majority  report  as  evidence  for  the 
fact  that  except  in  the  Leaveriworth  district  not  one  pro-slavery 
vote  was  cast  (p.  36)  in  this  supplementary  election.  No  one  ever 
even  thinks  of  claiming  this  lack  of  pro-slavery  votes  was  for  want 
of  actual  bona  fide  pro-slavery  residents,  because  they  were  actually 

3«History  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  328. 

M2History  U.  S.   (Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1891),  Vol.  V.,  329. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  175 

in  numbers  in  each  district  and  entitled  to  vote  at  each  respective 
voting  place,  as  the  evidence  clearly  discloses. 
•  Concerning  the  Leavenworth  district  Howard  and  Sherman  in 
the  majority  report  say,  "It  is  impossible  for  your  committee  ac 
curately  to  decide  which  party  would  have  had  a  majority  of  the 
legal  votes  of  this  district,  had  no  illegal  votes  been  polled,  on  ac 
count  of  the  difficulty  of  determining  who  were  legal  and  who  il 
legal  voters  at  that  election."  Most  astonishing  language,  this — 
the  more  so  when  we  read  the  evidence.  They — this  very  commit 
tee — examined  as  to  this  Leavenworth  district  nine  witnesses.  As 
nearly  as  can  be,  I  give  respectively  the  words  of  each  as  to  its  le 
gality,  fraud  and  by  whom  practiced,  and  as  to  which  candidate 
had  "a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  of  this  district."  Taken  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  found  in  the  table  of  contents : 

1.  Same  candidates  elected  as  on  March  the  30th;  "I  never  heard  a 
charge  that  the  election  of  22d  of  May  was  carried  by  illegal  votes.  They 
gave  it  up,  considering  that  they  were  in  the  minority  in  this  district,  that 
the  pro-slavery  party  was  the  strongest,  I  did  not  see  many  Missourians 
here  on  the  22d  of  May."  A  few  Missourians  voted;  and  about  thirty  non 
resident  boat  hands  voted  the  free- State  ticket — witness  could  be  positive 
because  the  two  tickets  were  on  different  colored  paper;  as  to  illegal  votes 
"it  was  a  fair  stand  off."  (Evidence,  p.  52.)  2.  "There  was  no  crowd  of 
strangers  here  on  that  day,  and  the  election  passed  off  quietly.  I  do  not 
recollect  of  hearing  an  angry  word  that  day."  "I  think  the  number  of 
legal  votes  was  larger  on  the  22d  of  May  in  this  district  than  at  the  pre 
vious  March  election;  and  my  opinion  is  that  the  majority  of  the  pro- 
slavery  party  had  increased."  (Ib.,  525.)  3.  "I  suppose  there  were  about 
715  votes  polled  at  this  election.  [The  exact  number,  see  poll-look,  Ma 
jority  Report,  p.  36.]  I  believe  they  were  nearly,  if  not  all,  legal  voters. 
...  I  saw  probably  six  or  seven  Missourians  on  the  ground.  ...  I  believe 
that  the  poll-book  shows  about  the  strength  of  the  parties."  [The  poll- 
books  show  560  for  the  pro-slavery  ticket,  140  for  the  free-State,  15  "scat 
tering."  (Majority  Report,  p.  36.)].  Some  free-State  men  refused  to  vote; 
some  non-resident  votes  taken,  cannot  say  how  many;  witness  was  a  free- 
State  man  and  one  of  the  election  judges,  says  he  was  willing  for  all  who 
voted  to  do  so  because  he  thought  it  lawful  and  right.  "I  do  not  know  of 
any  free- State  men  being  deterred  from  voting  that  day  on  account  of  his 
political  v4ews,  and  if  they  had  wanted  to  vote  they  had  an  opportunity  to, 
so  far  as  I  know."  (Evidence,  p.  529.)  5.  "There  were  a  great  many  per 
sons  that  voted  that  day  that  I  believe  were  non-residents  of  the  Territory. 
...free-State  men  did  not  all  vote.  .  .pro -slavery  men  all  voted,  or  gen 
erally  so.  ...  I  saw  nothing  to  deter  me  from  doing  my  duty  as  judge  of 
the  elections."  (Evidence,  pp.  524-25.)  6.  Witness  was  a  free-State  man, 
and  voted  that  ticket;  heard  two  men  whom  he  took  to  be  from  Missouri 


176  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

say  they  voted;  election  quiet;  no  crowd.  "I  think  there  was  a  free-soil 
majority  on  the  22d  of  May  here;  but  that  is  my  notion  only.  ...  I  do  not 
pretend  to  say  that  such  was  the  case."  (lb.,  1140-1-2.)  7.  Great  many 
Missourians  in  town,  but  witness  saw  none  of  them  vote;  heard  some  say 
they  brought  over  parties  to  vote.  "I  noticed  no  disturbance  or  effort  to 
control  the  vote  of  any  one.  I  was  not  at  the  polls  at  all.  I  know  but 
little  of  what  was  going  on."  (Ib.,  527-8).  8.  From  the  poll-books  wit 
ness  identifies  32  names  who,  he  says,  resided  in  Missouri  at  time  of  this 
election.  Witness  was  a  Missourian  who  voted  and  returned  to  Missouri; 
"election  quietly  conducted."  (lb.,  563-4.)  9.  Identifies  21  names  on  the 
poll-books  who,  he  says,  lived  in  Missouri  at  time  of  election,  all  but  eight 
or  ten  being  those  pointed  out  by  former  witness;  many  lived  in  Kansas 
at  time  witness  gave  his  deposition,  May  30th;  many  Missourians  who 
voted  had  claims  and  afterward  moved  their  families  on  them.  ( Ib.,  530. ) 

Any  fair  man  must  admit  that  this  evidence — a  correct  epitome 
of  which  I  have  given — shows  not  only  by  its  greater  weight,  but 
almost  without  a  contradiction.,  that  there  were  twenty  to  thirty 
illegal  free- State  votes,,  and  from  twenty-five  to  thirty-five  il 
legal  Southern  votes;  it  shows  that  the  witness  Adams  was  cor 
rect  when  he  said  that  "it  was  about  a  fair  stand-off."  Taking  the 
evidence  in  all  its  bearings,  give  it  the  benefit  of  all  uncertainty, 
and  we  must  admit  that  the  pro-slavery  candidate  in  the  Leaven- 
worth  district  had  a  legal  majority  of  at  least  over  three  hundred 
bona  fide  legal  Southern  votes.  This  is  the  evidence  which  Howard 
and  Sherman  had  before  them — the  only  thing  by  which  legally 
they  could  have  been  guided — their  conclusion  is  a  fair  sample  of 
their  treatment  of  evidence.  The  application  of  the  facts  to  Mr. 
Schouler's  statements  concerning  this  supplemental  election  is 
easy.  If  he  had  anything  before  him  to  invalidate  this  proof,  it 
does  not  appear  in  the  present  light  of  history. 

Those  who  were  upon  Kansas  soil  were  by  no  means  all  who  par 
ticipated  in  her  affairs.  Her  history  from  1854  to  1859  is  no  more 
local  than  is  that  of  the  Civil  War.  Sedition  and  rebellion  in 
Kansas  found  their  source,  and  strength  in  the  North.  Her  early 
elections  with  all  their  ugly  blemishes  found  the  cause  of  these  de 
fects  in  the  aggressions  of  such  organizations  as  emigrant  aid  so 
cieties,  the  prime  object  of  which  was  to  create  a  free  State  for 
white  men  only,  and  in  the  fuel  which  the  old-time  abolitionists, 
led  by  Philips  and  Garrison,  continually  fed  the  public  mind.  The 
free-State  abolition i'sts  wanted  to  destroy  slavery  that  they  might 
occupy  its  room;  the  Garrison  abolitionists  struck  at  slavery 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  177 

through  a  blind  and  perverted  philanthropy  which  they  carried  so 
far  that  they  became  the  most  bitter  and  pronounced  disunionists 
the  country  ever  produced.  They  were  arrant  rebels  against  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  but  lacked  the  physical  courage 
to  carry  out  their  doctrine;  while  they  had  the  unscrupulousness 
to  attack  the  legal  rights  of  the  South  with  any  covert  means  in 
their  power.  The  free-State  abolitionists  became  the  aggressive 
leaders  and  were  rapidly  gathering  all  anti-slavery  advocates  into 
their  ranks.  Since  it  was  these  last  who  led  the  North  in  the  latter 
fifties,  their  acts  at  the  time  of  and  those  following  the  Kansas  elec 
tions  cannot  be  correctly  estimated  without  following  rather  closely 
the  free-State  movement.  This  will  lead  me  to  treat  more  definitely 
the  extent  and  scope  of  the  rebellious  movement  in  Kansas. 

Isaac  T.  Goodnow,  in  his  overstrained  laudatory  introduction 
to  Doctor  Charles  Robinson's  book,  The  Kansas  Conflict,  June 
1,  1891,  says,  "While  Eli  Thayer,  providentially  the  founder 
of  the  New  England  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  was  flying  over  the 
North  like  a  flaming  meteor,  stirring  up  the  people  for  money  and 
recruits  in  his  grand  crusade  for  the  freedom  of  Kansas,  Charles 
Robinson,  his  trusty  lieutenant,  wonderfully  prepared  for  it  by  a 
like  providence  by  his  California  experience,  was  sternly  holding 
the  helm  amid  the  storms  and  breakers  in  Kansas."  (XIV.) 

On  page  33  of  his  Kansas  Crusade,  Mr.  Thayer  says,  ".  .  .  I 
was  speaking  all  the  way  from  Penobscot  to  the  Schuylkill,  and 
from  the  seaboard  to  the  lakes.  It  was  my  mission  to  raise  men 
and  money  for  the  security  of  freedom  in  the  Territory,  and  to  com 
bine  the  Northern  States  in  this  work.  I  did  not  doubt  Robinson's 
ability  or  fidelity  in  the  use  of  means/' 

Here,  then,  fe  positive  and  direct  information  for  the  whole  North 
as  to  the  purposes  and  movements  in  and  toward  Kansas.  This 
concern  thus  organized  by  Thayer  and  others  was  legalized,  adver 
tised,  and  in  a  high  state  of  ferment  before  any  steps  were  taken  in 
Missouri  or  other  Southern  States  to  offset,  its  influence.  It  was 
chartered  by  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  April,  1854,  several 
days  before  the  President  had  signed  the  bill  opening  the  Kansas 
Territory.  It  was  re-chartered  in  the  spring  of  1855  under  the 
name  of  the  New  England  Aid  Company.  Its  capital  stock  was 
started  at  $1,000,000,  though  the  charter  members  circulated  a  re 
port  that  the  capital  was  $5,000,000 ;  and,  in  truth,  the  charter  pro- 
12 


178  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

vided  for  any  capital  "not  to  exceed  $5,000,000.343  Of  the  capital 
stock  there  was  at  once  paid  or  donated  ninety-nine  thousand  dol 
lars.  As  previously  noted,  Eli  Thayer  was  president,  Amos  A. 
Lawrence,  J.  M.  S.  Williams,  and  Thomas  Webb,  and  Prof.  Sell- 
man  of  Yale  University,  were  either  officers  or  active  members; 
and  eight  hundred  prominent  Northern  men  had  subscribed  the 
capital  stock;  and  later  thousands  aided  the  organization  or  came 
under  its  influence.  This  movement  had  behind  it  men  of  wealth 
and  education.  Especially  was  it  boasted  that  "Amos  A.  Lawrence, 
J.  M.  S.  Williams,  and  J.  Lowell,  of  Boston,  are  merchant 
princes/'344 

On  March  12,  1856,  the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories  (the 
one  from  which  I  have  been  quoting  was  a  special  House  commit 
tee)  made  a  report  on  the  Kansas  troubles,  and  justly  attached  a 
great  measure  of  the  blame  for  Kansas  conditions  upon  Northern 
societies  operating  to  foster  the  abnormal  settlement  of  Kansas. 
Nettled  at  this  report,  the  New  England  concern  issued  a  verbose 
circular,  dated  Boston,  June  17,  185G.  .  Mr.  Lawrence  went  as  a 
witness  before  the  House  investigating  committee  to  endeavor  to 
vindicate  his  organization,  and  to  endeavor  to  prevent  its  criminal 
connection  with  the  Kansas  sedition  and  rebellion  being  proven. 
He  files  his  circular  and  made  it  a  part  of  his  testimony.  He  says 
he  read  it  before  it  was  printed,  and  that  "there  is  nothing  in  it  but 
what  is  true."3'  When  we  examine  the  circular  we  are  struck  with 
the  recklessness  exhibited  by  the  management  in  an  unsuccessful 
effort  to  escape  responsibility  for  the  bloodshed  incident  to  Kan 
sas  politics.  This  circular  asserts  that  associations  were  formed  in 
Missouri,  and  "in  active  operation  to  interfere  in  the  internal  af 
fairs  of  the  Territory  in  a  manner  neither  legal  nor  justifiable/' 
before  the  concern  headed  by  Mr.  Thayer  and  Mr.  Lawrence  had 
an  existence.  Notice,  Mr.  Lawrence  does  not  -say  that  this  circular 
contains  nothing  but  what  Ttivbelieves  to  be  true — he  says  "nothing 
in  it  but  what  is  true."34  He  admits  that  this  same  identical  con 
cern  began  work  under  another  name:  "the  subscriptions  of  stock 
»were  made,  and  action  had,  until  the  spring  of  1855,  when  a  new 

343Thayer,  The  Kansas  Conflict,  27. 
^"App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,   150. 
345Evidence,  875. 
3WIb.,  875. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  179 

charter  was  obtained/'3"  The  truth  is,  that  this  concern,  "by  meth 
ods  neither  legal  nor  justifiable,"  actually,  actively,  began  April, 
1854.348  In  the  majority  report  to  the  House  it  is  shown  that  the 
very  first  Southern  organizations  (and  these  without  capital  and 
with  but  a  very  limited  local  organization),  or,  as  the  Report  calls 
them,  "secret  political  organizations,"  or  slavery  "lodges,"  "Blue 
Lodges,"  etc.,  were  organized  "about  the  time  that  Governor  A.  H. 
Reeder  reached  the  Territory,"  which  was  "October  A.  D.  1854."* 
Then  from  April,  1854,  to  October  the  Northern  organization  had 
been  diligently  gathering  money,  and  "like  a  flaming  meteor  arous 
ing  the  North."  In  fact,  emigrants  under  the  organized  leader 
ship  of  the  politicians  were  on  their  way  to  Kansas  almost  as  soon 
as  the  President  had  signed  the  bill  opening  Kansas  to  both  North 
and  South.  They  had  been  arriving  long  before  counter  move 
ments  in  the  South  were  started.  Colonel  S.  E.  Tapan,  who  was 
the  clerk  of  the  so-called  legislature  which  the  North  supported  in 
opposition  to  the  true  Territorial  legislature,  and  who  were  at 
tempting  to  deliberate  when  dispersed  by  United  States  soldiers 
aided  by  civil  officers,330  writing  to  the  Denver  Tribune,  in  1883, 
says,  "When  the  first  party  of  emigrants  [of  whom  the  writer  was 
one]  to  Kansas  from  New  England — as  early  as  July,  1854,  reached 
the  city  of  St.  Louis  en  route  .  .  ."  they  were  met  by  Doctor  Chas. 
Robinson,  the  accredited  agent  of  the  New  England  Emigrant  Aid 
Company,  who  at  once  led  the  party  to  Lawrence.351  Sparks  says 
this  party  left  the  North  in  June.352  The  very  earliest  meeting  held 
by  Southern  people  to  consider  the  impending  movement,  is  placed 
by  Wilder  on  July  29,  1854,  on  which  day  he  says  the  "Platt 
County  Self -Defensive  Association"  met  at  Weston,  Missouri.338 
No  counter  move  was  attempted  by  this  local  body,  nor  was  any 
from  any  other  Southern  source,  as  stated,  attempted  until  Octo 
ber.854  On  the  very  next  day  after  this  meeting  at  Weston  this 


M7Ib.,  873. 

348Thayer,  The  Kansas  Crusade,  25-6  ;  N.  L.  Prentis.  History  Kansas,  45. 
S49Majority  Report,  3. 

S30Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  5,  p.  65  et  seq.;  Sparks,   Exp. 
Am.  People,  360. 

S51Intro.  Kans.  Conf.,  XX. 
S52Exfc    Am.  People,  357. 
S53Annals  of  Kan.,  37. 
8M2  Rhodes,  History  U.  S.,  78. 


180  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Northern  party  arrived  in  Lawrence,  and  it  was  their  well-known 
coming  that  caused  the  Weston  meeting.  Even  before  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  idea  of  an  abnormal  emigra 
tion  movement  for  political  power,  had  its  Northern  origin.355  The 
petition  to  the  legislature  for  a  charter  of  the  first  emigrant  or 
ganization  was  circulated  in  March,  1854.356  This  charter  granted 
by  the  Massachusetts  legislature  declared  its  object  to  be  "for  the 
purpose  of  assisting  emigrants  to  settle  in  the  West/'  Its  author 
said  to  the  legislature:  "This  is  a  plan  to  prevent  the  forming  of 
any  more  slave  States.  If  you  will  give  us  this  charter  there  shall 
never  be  another  slave  State  admitted  into  this  Union."357  "The 
charter  was  signed  by  the  governor  on  the  26th  day  of  April,  and 
took  effect  immediately,"  says  Eev.  Edward  Everett  Hale.  He  then 
tells  us  that  those  named  in  it  and  others  interested  met  and  ac 
cepted  the  charter  on  the  4th  day  of  May,  and  appointed  a  com 
mittee  "to  report  a  plan  of  organization  and  system  of  opera 
tions."81  Reporting  immediately,  this  committee  proposed  (1)  that 
their  directors  "contract  immediately,  with  some  one  of  the  com 
peting  lines  of  travel,  for  the  conveyance  of  twenty  thousand  per 
sons  from  Massachusetts  to  that  place  in  the  West  which  the  direc 
tors  shall  select  for  their  first  settlement."35  They  alleged  that 
their  movement  determines  "the  institutions  of  the  unsettled  ter 
ritories"  ;*°  they  declared  that  the  effect  of  the  movement  would  be 
that  "by  dispelling  the  fears  that  Kansas  will  be  a  slave  state,  the 
company  will  remove  the  only  bar  which  now  hinders  its  occupation 
by  free  settlers";861  they  boldly  proposed  "to  plant  a  free  State  in 
Kansas  to  the  lasting  advantage  of  the  country  and  to  return  a 
handsome  profit  to  the  stockholders  upon  their  investment."86  Not 
withstanding  Mr.  Lawrence's  affidavit  to  the  contrary,  there  can  be 
no  legitimate  historical  doubt  that  all  this  was  published  to  the 
world  months  before  any  siniilar  movement  or  "Blue  Lodge"  or- 


355Thayer,  The  Kan.  Crusade,  25. 
356E.  E.  Hale,  Kanzas  and  Nebraska  (1854),  219. 
337The  Kansas  Crusade,  26. 

358Kanzas   and   Nebraska:     An    Account   of  the   Em.    Aid   Companies    (Boston, 
1854),  220. 
359Ib.,  223. 
360Ib.,  226. 
S81Ib.,  228. 
363Ib.,  225;  Thayer,  The  Kan.  Cru.,  28. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  181 

ganization  in  Missouri  or  elsewhere  in  the  South.  Dr.  Hale,  in  his 
preface  to  "Kansas  and  Nebraska,"  says,  "I  have  .  .  .  been  favored 
with  personal  narratives  by  the  agents  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany.  .  .  .  Since  the  formation  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Companies, 
I  have  been  deeply  interested  in  their  success/7  This  preface 
was  dated,  "Worcester,  Mass.,  Aug.  21,  1854."  The  book  was  im 
mediately  published  in  Boston.  These  statements  of  the  author  dis 
close  that  (1)  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company  had  already  had  agents 
in  Kansas  who  had  returned  to  Massachusetts;  (2)  more  than  one 
Emigrant  Aid  Company  was  then  and  prior  thereto  had  been  ac 
tively  in  operation. 

Not  only  thife  evidence  is  furnished  us  by  Dr.  Edward  Everett 
Hale,  but  he  gives  us  a  most  valuable  bit  of  truth  to  the  effect  that 
at  that  time  no  threats  against  abolitionists  were  being  made  by 
Southerners  in  the  West,  that  there  was  no  reason  for  the  North 
ern  emigrant  to  fear  bodily  harm,  and  that  whatever  had  been  said 
in  the  West  against  abolitionists  had  been  "mildly"  stated.  Hear 
him :  "It  is  the  universal  custom,  at  the  West,  for  settlers  in  the 
same  neighborhood  to  enter  into  associations  for  mutual  protec 
tion;  .  .  .  An  effort  has  been  made,  particularly  by  one  person,  to 
induce  such  associations  to  refuse  to  admit  'Abolitionists/  under 
the  pretext  that  they  would  wish  to  'run  off'  slaves  from  their  neigh 
bors'  lands.  Eesolutions  to  this  effect  have  been  passed  in  one  or 
two  instances,  but  have  been  rejected  or  neglected  more  often. 
When  passed  they  have  been  mildly  stated,  and  have  amounted  only 
to  a  resolution  to  support  'slaveholders  in  their  legal  rights';  dis 
avowing  any  intention  to  interfere  with  persons  who  do  not  attempt 
to  violate  those  rights,  as  the  future  laws  shall  state  them."88 
This  is  the  only  charge  that  he  can  find  against  pro-slavery  people 
in  either  Missouri  or  Kansas, — and  this  was  some  time  after  the 
free-State  movement  had  started  from  the  North. 

Yet  Mr.  Thayer  started  his  well-armed  and  highly  protected 
emigrant  bands  sweeping  down  from  the  North  with  the  boast, 
"That  we  should  put  a  cordon  of  free  States  from  Minnesota  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  stop  the  forming  of  slave  States.  After  that 
we  should  colonize  the  northern  border  States  and  exterminate 


182  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

slavery."34  Within  a  few  pages  of  where  he  testified  to  the  mild 
and  peaceful  actions  of  the  Southern  emigrants  in  that  early  day 
of  August,  1854,  the  now  venerable  Dr.  Edward  Everett  Hale  sent 
a  similar  boast  to  them  and  to  the  South :  "Every"  indication  now 
points  to  victory  ...  It  is  gained  unless  the  great  principles  of 
association  in  a  great  cause  fail  as  it  never  failed  before.  .  .  .  That 
victory  will  be  won  !303 

Thus  was  the  issue  forced  upon  the  South;  thus  did  wealth  and 
superior  force  endeavor  to  throttle  the  local  affairs  of  existing  and 
prospective  States.  Fire  and  sword  were  destined  to  be  their  hand 
maid,,  yet  high  officials  of  the  movement  resorted  to  perjury  and  un 
blushing  prevarication  to  cover  their  movements  and  hide  from 
the  world  the  true  history  of  the  causes  leading  to  the  bloody  close 
of  America's  second  great  epoch.  Follow  the  record,  and  let  us 
see  that  this  is  true ;  and  more,  let  us  see  that  the  usual  version  of 
the  Kansas  story  rests  upon  a  rotten  foundation. 

In  the  Journal  of  the  Rev.  Theo.  Parker,  of  Boston,  dated  April 
2,  185-J-,  he  says,  "Saw  the  Kansas  party  go  off  ...  about  forty, 
nearly  half  women  and  children.  There  were  twenty  Sharp's  Rights 
of  the  People  in  their  hands,  of  the  new  and  improved  edition,  and 
divers  Colt's  six-shooters  also,  .  .  .  Those  riflefe  and  pistols  were 
to  defend  their  soil  from  the  American  Government,  which  wishes 
to  plant  slavery  in  Kansas."* 

In  his  deposition,  p.  873  et  sequin  the  Evidence  of  the  Cong. report, 
Mr.  Lawrence  asserts  that  no  firearms  were  ever  bought  by  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company,  and  that  this  company  has  never  "inter 
fered  with  the  internal  affairs  of  [Kans.]  Territory";  and  that 
as  a  "company"  it  was  not  opposed  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act, 
and  that  it  meant  to  settle  Kansas  with  "an  intelligent"  popula 
tion.367  In  the  memorial  of  the  same  company  over  the  signature  of 
J.  M.  S.  Williams,  S.  Cabot,  "Jr.,  L.  B.  Eussell,  C.  J.  Higgins,  and 
W.  B.  Spooner,  which  was  filed  before  Congress  in  protest  against 
the  report  of  March  12,  1856,  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Terri 
tories,  they  allege,  "This  company  has  never  invested  a  dollar  in 
any  of  the  implements  of  war."8* 


8MThe  Kan.  Crusade,  32. 

«85Kansas  and  Neb.,  247. 

M«Frothingham,  Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  435-6. 

»8TSp.  Cong.  Rep.,  Ev.,  876. 

•"Appendix  Cong.  Globe,  1  sess.,  34  Cong.,  853. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  183 

In  his  Kansas  Conflict,  page  123,,  Charles  Kobinson  says  that 
"Geo.  Deitzler  was  sent  with  a  letter  to  Eli  Thayer  [president  of 
this  same  company  of  which  Mr.  Lawrence  made  the  above  state 
ment  under  oath]  for  one  hundred  Sharp's  rifles."  On  the  same 
page  Mr.  Deitzler  says,  "Only  a  few  days  after  the  election  of  March 
the  30th,  ...  I  presented  my  letter  to  Mr.  Thayer  [at  Worcester, 
Mass.].  .  .  Within  an  hour  after  our  arrival  in  Boston,  the  execu 
tive  committee  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Society  [o<f  which  Mr.  Law 
rence  spoke  as  above]  held  a  meeting,  and  delivered  to  me  an  order 
for  one  hundred  Sharp's  rifles.  .  .  .  The  guns  were  packed  on  the 
following  Sunday,  and  I  started  for  home  on  Monday."  He  ar 
rived  in  Lawrence,  Kansas,  about  the  last  of  April,  scarce  a  month 
after  the  election.  The  guns  were  labeled  "books,"  and  Mr.  Deitz 
ler  calls  them  "Beeeher  Bibles."  It  was  after  this  delivery  to  Mr. 
Deitzler  of  guns  that  Mr.  Lawrence  made  the  above  statement.  In 
July,  1855,  as  Mr.  Kobinson  sets  forth  in  his  book,  he  sent  "Maj. 
J.  B.  Abbott  to  Boston  for  guns"  to  equip  a  company  of  the  rebels 
which  Abbott  had  raised  and  drilled  near  Lawrence.  On  the  letter 
written  by  Robinson  and  carried  North  by  Abbott,  this  endorse 
ment  was  made  : 

OFFICE  OF  XEW  ENGLAND  EMIGRANT  AID  Co., 

No.  3  WINTER  ST.,  BOSTON,  Aug.  10,  1855. 

Dr.  Chas.  Robinson,  within  mentioned,  is  an  agent  of  the  Emigrant  Aid 
Company,  and  is  worthy  of  implicit  confidence.  We  cheerfully  recommend 
Mr.  J.  B.  Abbott  to  the  public. 

C.  H.  BRANSCOMB,  Sec.  pro  tern.* 

Mr.  Robinson  continues : 

"Major  Abbott  also  procured  a  mountain  howitzer  with  ammuni 
tion,  as  well  as  Sharp's  rifles.  During  the  spring  and  summer  sev 
eral  invoices  of  arms  were  received  for  different  parts  of  the  Ter 
ritory,  nearly  all  furnished  through  the  assistance  of  persons  con 
nected  with  the  Aid  Company.  The  following  letter  will  show  the 
interest  taken  by  Amos  A.  Lawrence,  one  of  the  most  earnest  and 
efficient  friends  Kansas  ever  had : 

'BOSTON,  Aug.  11,  1855. 
DEAR  SIR: 

Request  Mr.  Palmer  to  have  one  hundred  Sharp's  rifles  packed  in  casks 
like  hardware  and  to  retain  them  subject  to  my  order.     Also  to  send  the 


*Kan.  Conf.,  124-5. 


184  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

bill  to  me  by  mail.  I  will  pay  it  either  with  my  note,  according  to  the 
terms  agreed  on  between  him  and  Dr.  Webb,  or  in  cash,  less  interest  at 
seven  per  cent. 

Yours  truly,  AMOS  A.  LAWRENCE. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Abbott, 

Care  A.  Rogers,  Hartford,  Conn.' 

'BOSTON,  Aug.  20,   1855. 
MY  DEAR  SIR: 

This  installment  of  carbines  is  far  from  being  enough,  and  I  hope  the 
measures  you  are  taking  will  be  followed  up  until  every  organized  company 
of  trusty  men  in  the  Territory  shall  be  supplied.  Dr.  Cabot  will  give  me  the 
names  of  any  gentlemen  here  who  subscribe  money.  ...  I  promise  them  it 
shall  be  repaid  in  cash  or  in  rifles.  .  .  . 

You  must  dispose  of  them  where  they  will  do  the  most  good,  and  for  this 
purpose  you  should  advise  with  Dr.  Robinson  and  Mr.  Pomeroy. 

Yours  truly,  AMOS  A.  LAWRENCE. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Abbott, 

Care  A.  Rogers,  Hartford.' 

'BOSTON,  August  24,  1855. 
MY  DEAR  SIR  : 

The  rifles  ought  to  be  on  the  way.  Have  you  forwarded  them?  The 
Topeka  people  will  require  half  of  these. 

Yours  truly,  AMOS  A.  LAWRENCE. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Abbott.'  " 

The  reader  may  be  able  to  reconcile  these  facts  with  the  state 
ments  in  Mr.  Lawrence's  deposition;  the  writer  cannot.  In  a  note, 
the  historian  Ehodes  says,  "Amos  A.  Lawrence  was  a  gentleman  of 
wealth  and  social  position  in  Boston ;  was  treasurer  of  the  Emigrant 
Aid  Company :  was  personally  a  large  contributor  to  it."81 

No  wonder  Southern  people  lost  confidence  in  Northern  Con 
gressmen  who  were  backing  the  Kansas  rebels,  when,  in  the  face  of 
such  facts,  which  were  either  then  known  or  of  which  they  remained 
in  wilful  ignorance,  men  like  Kepresentative  Trafton,  of  Massachu- 
setife,  would  defend  these  organizations  as  did  he  on  March  12, 
1856,  when  in  a  speech  in  Congress  he  said,  "Allow  me  to  say  that 
there  has  never  been  purchased  by  the  emigrant  aid  society  a  single 
musket  or  rifle,  or  arm  of  defence  of  any  kind  whatever.  They 
have  never  done  this  thing  charged."370  Or,  on  February  18,  1856, 


888History  U.  S.,  Vol.  III.,  82. 

.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  lol. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  185 

when  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Henry  Wilson,  also  of  Massa 
chusetts,  said,  "Sir,  the  emigrant  aid  society  of  New  England  has 
violated  no  law,  human  or  divine;  they  have  not  performed  illegal 
actions  or  any  act  inconsistent  with  the  obligations  of  patriotism, 
morality  or  religion."87 

But  since  it  was  so,  why  all  this  marslialing  into  Kansas  of  the 
munitions  of  war  ?  Why  the  great  urgency  thus  shown  ?  The  his 
tories  are  full  of  stories  of  invading,  armed,  "murderous"  bands  of 
Missourians;  and  we  are  taught  that  these  guns  were  for  protec 
tion  of  life  and  property  against  an  aggressive  Southern  movement ; 
but  follow  the  record  and  let  the  sober  light  of  the  facts  in  their 
proper  order  guide  us  to  a  right  conclusion — even  if  it  be  to  find 
that  rebellion — but  let  each  see  for  himself. 

Up  to  the  time  these  implements  of  war  went  West,  not  a  North 
ern  man  had  been  hurt,  or  seriously  threatened,  on  account  of  Ms 
voting  or  politics;  nor  had  any  violence  been  done  or  offered  to 
any  quiet,  peaceable,  free-State  man.  Up  to  the  time  that  we  see 
all  this  rush  of  guns  from  the  North  not  a  man  in  the  whole  Terri 
tory  had  been  killed  or  in  any  way  assaulted ;  no  fighting  by  reason 
of  politics,  and,  in  truth,  remarkably  little  under  any  circumstances 
considering  the  excitement  and  frontier  life, — had  occurred  at  a 
single  voting  place  in  the  entire  Territory.  The  first  man  killed 
lost  his  life  in  the  fall  of  1855,  November  21,  months  after  the 
North  had  gathered  in  battle  array  against  lawful  authority.  This 
first  killing  was  that  of  Dow,  a  free-State  man,  by  Coleman,  a  pro- 
slavery7  man.  The  homicide,  however,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  politics.  It  entirely  grew  out  of  a  dispute  over  a  land  claim.3'2 
Just  at  that  event  we  discover  the  initials  of  open  conflict.  Sheriff 
Jones,  elected  at  the  March  election,  the  lawfulness  and  legality  of 
which  I  examined  at  some  length  to  show  that  open  conflict  began 
in  resistance  to  legally  constituted  authority, — immediately  ar 
rested  Coleman.  The  North  had  prepared  to  resist  all  authority— 
it  had  determined  and  was  now  prepared  to  force  upon  Kansas  its 
demands, — demands,  let  us  not  forget,  which  had  no  regard  what- 
?ver  for  the  rights  of  the  negro.  We  shall  see  later  that  their  fight 
for  a  "free  State"  was  far  from  a  fight  for  the  mitigation  of  the 


mlb.,  90. 

"'Repts.  of  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  III.,  14. 


186  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

sufferings  of  slavery,  Rather  than  wait  to  see  the  result  of  the  legal 
proceedings  against  Coleman,  a  Northern  free-State  man  by  the 
iian^e  of  Branson  and  a  large  number  of  his  own  party  met  and 
boldly  declared  that  they  would  take  the  execution  of  Coleman  into 
their  own  hands.  Harrison  Buckley,  a  friend  of  Coleman,  hearing 
of  these  threats,  swore  out  peace  warrants.  Acting  under  these 
warrants,  Sheriff  Jones  arrested  Branson,  shortly  after  which  he 
was  met  by  a  party  of  armed  free-State  men  who  demanded  of  him 
and  by  show  of  superior  force  obtained  the  release  of  Branson.  On 
the  night  of  this  rescue,  the  homes  of  Buckley  and  Coleman,  the 
latter  yet  in  custody,  both  were  burned  by  incendiaries.373  Reliable 
men  alleged  that  the  Buckley  family  was  turned  out  of  doors  with 
the  loss  of  everything  but  the  clothing  in  which  they  fled.374  Now, 
let  us  note:  (1)  this  rescue  occurred  November  26th,  only  five  days 
after  the  killing;  (2)  the  rescuing  party  had  gathered  at  the  home 
of  J.  B.  Abbott;  (3)  this  is  the  same  J.  B.  Abbott  who  had  been 
sent  in  the  July  previous  to  Boston  for  guns,373  and  who  "also  pro 
cured  a  mountain  howitzer  with  ammunition,  as  well  as  Sharp's 
rifles";  (4)  the  rescuing  party  fell  behind  the  small  army  which 
had  been  gathered  some  months  previous,  and  which  had  been 
armed  by  Amos  A.  Lawrence  and  other  Northern  men  in  August. 
previous.378  Thus  defied,  the  officers  of  the  Territory  found  them 
selves  face  to  face  with  a  fortified  military  organization  which  for 
cibly  prevented  the  execution  of  the  legal  processes.  Lawrence  was 
the  fortified  stronghold  of  this  belligerent  party.  Gathering  a 
posse,  the  sheriff  went  down  upon  Lawrence;  and  thus  began  what 
some  writers  call  the  "Wakarusa  war,  or  first  attack  upon  Law 
rence."37  Later  I  shall  notice  some  details  of  this  "fight,"  the 
chief  concern  now  is  to  see  the  beginning  of  actual  conflict  and  its 
object. 

No  fair  historian  can  truthfully  claim  that  this  gathering  of 
arms  and  marshaling  of  drilled  companies  were  needed  for  the  pro 
tection  of  either  life  or  property.  It  is  amusing,  as  well  as  some 
what  significant,  to  remember  that  Dr.  Robinson  says  that  the 


373Repts.  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  III.,  14. 

374J.   Douglas  Brewerton.  The  War  in  Kan.    (1856),   150. 

S75P.  183,  supra. 

370Sup.  184  and  inf. 

377Rept.  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  III.,  pt.  1.  p.  15. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  187 

Northern  side  hired  a  "bully,"  and  that  he  "frightened  every  pro- 
slavery  man  from  the  field."  Just  think  of  it,  one  man  ran  all  the 
"Missouri  ruffians"  off  the  turf  in  a  few  days !  Be  that  as  it  may, 
one  thing  the  facts  make  certain:  these  guns  were  the  engines  of 
bold,  aggressive  sedition.  In  support  of  this  hear  Dr.  Robinson, 
writing  to  Amos  A.  Lawrence,  November  1,  1895 :  "A  few  of  us 
dared  to  take  a  stand  in  defiance  of  the  legislature,  and  meet  the 
consequences.  We  were  convinced  that  our  success  depended  upon 
the  measure.  .  .  .  For  a  while  we  had  to  contend  with  opposition 
from  the  faint-hearted,  but  by  persevering  in  our  course,  by  intro 
ducing  resolutions  into  conventions,  and  canvassing  the  Territory, 
repudiation  became  universal  with  free-State  men.  .  .  .  We  con 
ceived  it  important  to  disown  the  legislature  .  .  .  before  we  knew 
the  character  of  its  laws.  .  .  ."378  It  was  to  maintain  this  position 
that  the  North  furnished  thousands  of  money,  thousands  of  im 
proved  guns — one  enthusiast  wrote  that  the  Sharp's  rifles  would 
shoot  a  "thousand  times  a  minute" — and  not  content  with  the  or 
dinary  engines  of  death,  cannon  came  to  crown  the  work.  "The 
howitzer  was  procured  in  New  York  through  the  aid  of  Horace 
Greeley,  Olmstead,  and  others."37 

In  strange  contradiction  to  his  rebellious  actions,  Dr.  Eobinson 
acknowledged  the  lawful  authority  of  the  legislature,  repudiation  of 
which  he  helped  to  become  universal,  by  putting  in  operation  a 
charter  passed  by  it.380 

I  cannot  resist  the  inclination  to  notice  one  more  of  Mr.  Law 
rence's  statements.  It  is  pertinent  to  examine  the  credibility  of 
these  men  because  the  reason  for  all  this  preparedness  which  first 
burst  upon  public  gaze  in  the  Branson  rescue,  lies  hidden  beneath 
their  attempts  at  misleading  the  public ;  and  the  usual  version  of 
the  Kansas  troubles  rests  upon  their  credibility.  The  groundless 
claims  of  writers  concerning  the  causes  for  arming  the  Kansas 
abolitionists,  have  been  so  persistently  pushed  forward  that  I  feel 
that  the  light  should  shine  even  at  the  expense  of  encroaching  on 
the  patience  of  the  general  reader.  On  page  874  of  his  deposition, 
Mr.  Lawrence  says  that  no  pledge  concerning  their  political  opin- 


3T8Kans.  Conflict.  161:  Spring's  Kansas,  61. 

379Kans.  Conf..  126. 

3SOKan.  Hist.  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  216. 


188  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ions  was  taken  from  those  whom  they  assisted.  This  claim  is 
abundantly  refuted  by  credible  witnesses  who  deposed  before  the 
investigating  committee.  I  need  here  introduce  but  one,  Mr.  John 
E.  Ingalls,  who  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  and  who  personally 
knew  some  of  the  officers  of  this  New  England  emigrant  incubator — 
Mr.  Webb,  an  agent,  in  particular.  Mr.  Ingalls  says,  "The  under 
standing  was  that  they  would  help  none  but  those  who  voted  their 
ticket."  It  is  proven  by  numbers  of  other  witnesses  who  were  before 
the  investigating  committee  that  many  hundreds  of  the  Northern 
abolition  emigrants  came  to  the  Territory,  voted  and  went  home, 
saying  they  had  come  only  to  vote.  The  political  faith  held  by  the 
men  sent  out  by  Mr.  Lawrence's  company  was  the  paramount  con 
cern  of  its  promoters.  Mr.  Lawrence  is  impeached  by  the  greater 
weight  of  evidence;  was  he  evading  or  mistaken?  Could  he  have 
been  mistaken?  He  speaks  positively  and  for  the  actions  of  his 
company  whether  performed  by  himself  or  by  others  of  its  officers. 

Also  in  striking  contradiction  to  such  statements  as  he  made  and 
which  are  sometimes  since  repeated,  is  the  admission  made  in  the 
address  to  Congress  by  Mr.  Lawrence's  company.  There  they  say, 
"We  are  perfectly  willing  to  add,  however,  what  you  must  already 
be  aware  of,  that  when  we  organized  ourselves  to  extend  such  fa 
cilities  to  emigrants  from  the  East,  who  knew  that  they  would  be 
men  who  meant  to  live  in  a  free  State.  They  are  men  who  live  by 
hard  work,  as  we  all  do;  and  they  would  not  go  anywhere  where 
they  thought  that  the  permanent  institutions  of  the  State  would 
make  hard  work  disgraceful.  They  knew  that  by  the  principles  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  the  actual  settlers  must  control  the  in 
stitutions  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  They  were  willing  to  take  the 
chances  of  an  appeal  to  this  principle/788 

The  credibility  of  Dr.  Charles  Robinson  is  of  prime  importance, 
because  perhaps  no  one  of  "the  agitators  of  that  day  has  done  more 
to  mislead  no  small  per  cent,  of  the  otherwise  standard  non- Ameri 
can  and  Northern  writers.  There  has  been,  and  of  those  of  them 
who  yet  survive  there  is  yet,  a  bitter  fight  between  some  of  the  lead 
ers  of  the  Kansas  movement.  They  have  done  much  to  give  the 
world  a  chance  to  estimate  the  credibility  of  the  respective  parti 
cipants.  This  "fratericidal  war"  has  produced  much  to  sustain  the 

881App.  Cong.  Glebe,  34  Cong.,  151. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  189 

claims  of  the  South  that  wealthy  and  influential  Northern  men 
were  creating  a  popular  clamor  against  the  Southern  people, — a 
rage  which  produced  death  and  loss  to  the  South  and  one  which  the 
party  who  so  soon  obtained  the  control  of  the  Federal  Government 
said  they  could  not  more  effectively  control, — for  base  and  ignoble 
purposes.  William  Elsey  Connelley  in  "An  Appeal  to  the  Record" 
has  compiled  some  material  to  prove  "Robinson's  general  corrup 
tion  in  office  and  the  bond  swindles  of  his  administration,"  and  as 
serts  that  Robinson's  and  Thayer's  "books  are  worthless,  or  nearly 
so."*  Of  course,  this  assertion  is  valuable  only  to  the  extent  that 
it  is  sustained,  and  for  that  purpose  he  quotes  from  newspapers  and 
other  sources  contemporary  with  the  events  of  that  period,  pub 
lished  by  free-State  and  abolition  men.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  he  is  one  of  John  Brown's  strong  friends,  and  hence  this  recent 
production  of  his  will  have  the  more  weight  since  it  comes  from  one 
by  no  means  a  friend  to  the  "border  ruffians  of  Missouri"  or  the 
anti-bellum  Southern  position.  But  aside  from  the  evidence  which 
he  presents  to  sustain  his  charges  of  faithlessness  and  corruption 
against  Doctor  Robinson;  or  to  show  that  the  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  "was  organized  for  speculative  purposes,"  and  that  "making 
Kansas  a  free  State  was  incidental  to  its  design,  and  was  an  issue 
used  principally  to  induce  people  to  subscribe  for  stock  and  con 
tribute  money,"383  we  have  facts  furnished  by  the  earlier  sources 
which  must  not  be  neglected. 

On  page  899  of  the  Evidence  in  the  Congressional  investigating 
committee  report,  Doctor  Robinson  says,  "I  left  Massachusetts 
for  Kansas  in  June,  1854.  ...  At  that  time  no  Emigrant  Aid  So 
ciety  with  which  I  have  since  been  connected,  was  in  existence,  and, 
consequently,  I  could  not  act  as  agent  of  such  a  society.  My  first  con 
nection  with  an  emigrant  aid  society,  as  official  agent,  was  some 
time  in  September,  1854." 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  of  the  existence — Mr.  Thayer  says, 
and  the  records  bear  him  out,  "before  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
passed  the  Senate"38  — and  organization  and  operation  of  this  emi 
grant  "society"  or  "company" — call  it  what  we  may,  no  equivoca- 


882Ib.,  Topeka,  Kans.,  1903,  p.  9. 

883Ib.,  109. 

S84The  Kansas  Crusade,   36. 


190  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

tion  avoids  responsibility — before  Robinson  left  Massachusetts. 
Thayer  says,  "It  was  at  one  of  the  Chapman  Hall  meetings  that  I 
first  saw  Charles  Robinson  (afterward  Governor  of  Kansas),  and  en 
gaged  him  to  act  as  agent  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company."305  This 
was  not  only  prior  to  September,,  1854,  but  was  prior  to  Robinson's 
leaving  Massachusetts.  At  the  time  Mr.  Thayer  "engaged  him  to 
act  as  agent  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company,"  Robinson  met  the  di 
rectors  of  the  Compaq,  and  at  their  solicitation  he  agreed  to  start 
for  Kansas  June  28,  1854.880  But  Doctor  Blackmar,  Robinson's 
biographer,  must  have  felt  the  force  of  the  words  of  the  sworn  depo 
sition,  for  he  tries  to  ease  the  governor-doctor  over  the  pitfall;  he 
speaks  of  the  new  charter  which  was  little  more  than  the  same  old 
company  with  an  enlarged  list  of  incorporators,  which  Thayer  ob 
tained  for  his  scheme  in  February,  1855,  and  says,  "It  was  at  this 
time  Charles  Robinson  appears  on  the  scene  of  the  Kansas  conflict, 
He  was  chosen  a  financial  agent  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company, 
with  hi-s  field  of  operations  in  Kansas."387  But  in  another  place 
Doctor  Blackmar  says,  "In  June,  1854,  Doctor  Chas.  Robinson,  of 
Fitchburn,  and  Mr.  Charles  H.  Branson,  of  Holyoke,  Massachusetts, 
were  sent  to  explore  the  Territory  of  Kansas  and  select  a  site  for 
the  location  of  the  emigrants  sent  out  under  the  protection  of  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company.  .  .  .  While  the  explorations  of  these  ad 
vance  agents  were  taking  place,  a  company  [i.  e.,  a  band,  "party," 
he  calls  them  in  the  next  sentence]  was  being  formed  in  New  Eng 
land  to  establish  a  colony  in  Kansas.  Twenty-nine  emigrants 
formed  this  first  party,"  and  these  came  to  St.  Louis,  "where  they 
were  met  by  Doctor  Robinson.  The  Doctor  at  once  looked  after 
general  needs,  and  secured  transportation  on  the  steamer  'Pole 
Star/  which  left  St.  Louis  July  24th  for  Kansas  City" ;  and  the 
party  arrived,  accompanied  by  the  Doctor,  in  Kansas  July  31, 
1854.388  This  same  Doctor*  Robinson  met  another  and  larger  party 
a  few  weeks  later.889  Hence,  the  Emigrant  Aid  organization  was  in 
existence  when  Robinson  left  Massachusetts ;  he  was  employed  by  its 
officers  "to  act  as  agent";  he  did  so  act  in  more  than  one  way;  and 


385Ib.,  33. 

386Frank  W.  Blackmar,  Th.  D.,  The  Life  of  Chas.  Robinson   (Topeka,  1902),  86. 

387 1  b.,  103. 

R88Ib.,  111. 

389Ib.,  112. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  191 

this  employment  and  agency  and  action  thereunder  were  months 
prior  to  September,  1854.  Was  Doctor  Eobinson  cringingly  evading, 
or  mistaken?  Yet  the  historian,  James  Schouler,  says,  "Chas. 
Robinson,  .  .  .  the  best  of  the  whole  community  for  keeping  them 
faithful  to  high  ideals"  ;880  and  Dr.  von  Hoist :  "Doctor  Robinson,  a 
circumspect  and  clear-sighted  man/5391 

Or,  what  must  be  the  conclusion  as  to  tne  historical  credibility  of 
Governor  Reeder  and  the  majority  of  the  special  Kansas  investi 
gating  committee  ?  Reeder  was  backed  by  a  large  number  of  North 
ern  Congressmen.  His  position  and  statements  did  much  to  mould 
the  public  opinion  of  the  North  and  to  embitter  them  against  the 
South.  The  declarations  of  the  majority  report  of  the  investigat 
ing  committee  have  been  almost  literally  followed  by  those  who  pro 
fess  to  give  us  the  truth  about  the  Kansas  struggle.  They  write  the 
Northern  version  of  that  period,  and  as  I  showed  in  my  early  quo 
tations,  this  version  has  come  down  in  school  histories  now  in  use 
even  in  the  South.  Governor  Reeder  admitted  the  legality  of  the 
legislature,  except  in  a  few  voting  districts  which  he  set  aside  and 
in  which  he  ordered  new  elections,  the  result  at  which  has  been  seen. 
When  relieved  of  his  office  and  received  into  full  standing  with  the 
abolitionists,  he  repudiated  his  own  official  acknowledgment.  Was 
he  evading,  or  mistaken?  Doctor  Robinson  says  Governor  Reeder 
was  a  man  of  "integrity."  On  which  occasion?  When  he  commis 
sioned,  convened,  and  recognized  the  Lecompton  legislature;  or 
when  he  afterwards  called  this  same  body  "bogus"  to  the  public  and 
entered  the  ranks  of  rebellion  against  it;  or  when  he  wrote  the  pri 
vate  letter  which  I  gave  in  part,  admitting  that  the  Northern  party 
were  in  the  wrong?  He  had  no  more  light  last  than  first.  Yet  Mr. 
Rhodes  credits  him  thus :  "Reeder  was  an  able  lawyer  and  a  man 
of  eneregy  and  integrity."31  The  majority  of  the  Congressional 
committee  say  in  their  report  that  not  an  officer  from  constable  up 
in  the  entire  Territory  had  been  legally  elected.  In  the  same  re 
port,  but  at  another  place,  they  admit  that  General  Whitfield,  on 
November  29th,  1854,  was  legally  elected.  "Every  election  in  the 
Territorv  "  they  declare — and  note  how  that  declaration  has  since 


^History  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  330. 
S91History  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  174. 
S92History  U.  S.  (Harpers),  Vol.  II..  80. 


192  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

been  perpetuated — has  been  controlled  by  Missourians.  They  admit 
Whitfield's  was  not;  that  of  May  22,  1855,  held  in  the  sixteenth 
election  district  for  the  re-election  of  representatives  whose  election 
Governor  Reeder  had  declared  void,  was  proven  to  be  entirely  with 
out  fraud,  save  a  few  non-resident  votes  not  enough  to  change  the 
legal  result,  and  to  be  a  clean,  honest  victory  for  the  Southern  side, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  facts  which  I  have  presented  concerning  that 
of  March  30th.  Were  they  mistaken,  or  evading? 

Another  source  of  information  concerning  the  struggle  between 
the  North  and  the  South,  as  it  was  fought  in  Kansas,  which  is  pro 
nounced  by  some  present  Northern  writers  and  educators  very  high 
in  authority  as  "most  impartial,"  is  that  given  by  the  English 
writer  and  newspaper  correspondent,  Thos.  H.  Gladstone,  a  relative 
of  the  late  William  E.  Gladstone.  In  another  connection,  I  shall 
show  that  he  is  anything  other  than  "most  impartial,"  and  shall 
show  that  in  accepting  him  as  a  source  of  accurate  information, 
writers  have  rested  upon  a  very  misleading  witness. 

While  the  New-  England  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  whose  officers 
and  actions  thus  far  have  largely  engaged  our  attention,  was  the 
most  prominent,  it  was  by  no  means  all  of  its  class.  Some  were 
more  quiet  in  their  work,  yet  all  kept  busy.  Phillips  gives  us  the 
names  of  some  of  them  that  were  operating  at  the  time  he  wrote : 

"The  American  Settlement  Company,  of  New  York  City.  This 
company  founded  the  Council  City  settlement.  The  secretary  is 
Theo.  Dwight,  110  Broadway,  New  York."  He  then  gives  the  New 
England  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  and  mentions  its  officers  and 
active  members  with  whom  he  includes  the  now  venerable  Doctor 
Edward  Everett  Hale.  He  proceeds :  "The  Vegetarian  Settlement 
Company,  The  New  York  Kansas  League,  the  Octagon  Settlement 
Company,  and  some  minor  ones."85 

There  was  an  organization  called  the  "Kansas  Aid  Company" 
which  was  organized  in  Washington  city  "immediately  after  the 
passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act."  Honorable  D.  Mace,  a  re- 
resentative  from  Indiana,  was  an  officer  of  this  organization.  In  his 
sworn  deposition  he  says,  "The  leading,  primary  object  was  to  pre 
vent  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  Kansas" ;  and  he  also  says  that 
he  believed  "vigorous  steps"  were  needed  to  maintain  Northern 


393Phillips,  The  Conquest  of  Kansas  (1856),  25. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  193 

views  there.  He  continues :  "We  issued  a  circular  to  the  people  of 
the  country,  of  the  [Northern  states  particularly/7  .  .  .  "and  urged 
that  steps  be  taken  to  induce  persons  from  the  North,  who  were  op 
posed  to  slavery,  to  go  there  [Kansas]  and  prevent  its  introduction 
if  possible."  He  says  many  circulars  were  sent  out,  and  various 
communications  had,  just  what  all  was  said  he  does  not  remember ; 
but  the  object,  he  says,  was  to  induce  men  to  go  to  Kansas  "who 
would,  at  all  elections,  vote  against  the  institution  of  slavery/'304 
Mr.  Goodrich,  a  Congressman  from  Massachusetts,  was  president; 
Mr.  Fenton,  representative  from  New  York,  was  one  of  the  vice- 
presidents.  Many  of  the  Northern  Congressmen  became  members 
and  contributed  to  further  the  objects  of  the  society.  Many  of 
these  organizations  were  in  active  operation,  be  it  constantly  re 
membered,  months  before  any  Southern  organization,  designed 
either  for  initial  aggression  or  to  have  a  counteracting  influence, 
was  put  on  foot,  or  likely  conceived.  They  were  prior  to  the  "Blue 
Lodges"  of  Missouri,  and  had  commenced  their  crusade  long  before 
Missouri' rose  to  her  own  defence. 

MORAL  EFFECT  OF  EMIGRANT  INCUBATORS. 

In  Missouri,  and  in  a  few  place's  in  other  Southern  States,  emi 
grant  aid  societies  were  finally  organized.  These  were  on  a  small 
scale,  almost  entirely  without  capital,  and  spasmodic  in  effort. 
Southern  newspapers  appealed  to  Southern  men  to  move  to  Mis 
souri  or  to  Kansas.  We  often  find  pages  of  certain  books  filled  with 
quotations  from  such  Southern  appeals.  But  there  is  a  funda 
mental,  underlying  fact  in  connection  with  such  statements  or  ap 
peals  in  the  Southern  press,  which  is  generally  not  clearly  brought 
out  or  entirely  obscured.  And  that  is  that  the  state-legalized, 
widely-patronized,  highly-capitalized  Northern  concerns  were  the 
aggressors,  and  but  for  this  moral  and  political  sin  such  movements 
in  the  South  would  never  have  been,  and  such  appeals  from  the 
Southern  press  would  never  have  been  heard.  Counter  Southern 
action  became  a  matter  of  self-preservation  as  entirely  justifiable 
as  the  defence  of  one's  hearthstone  could  possibly  be.  Think  of 
what  the  emigrant  aid  movement  really  was.  By  such  movements 


^Evidence,  Com.  R.,  34  Cong.,  12,  No.  200,  p. 
13 


194  XORTHERX  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

any  section  of  the  United  States  then  or  now  could  dominate  the 
politics  of  any  other  section.  Such  efforts  defeat  the  primary  ob 
ject  of  a  republican  government;  they  lead  to  chaotic  anarchy.  As 
touching  the  moral  effect  of  these  organizations,  I  am  sure  that  a 
few  more  extracts  from  the  evidence  taken  by  the  Congressional 
committee  will  be  both  profitable  and  interesting. 

One  unimpeached  witness  says,  "1  do  not  think  there  would  have 
been  any  excitement  at  all,  if  Free-State  men  had  emigrated  here 
in  the  usual  way,  as  had  always  been  the  case  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Western  territories.  It  was  my  feeling,  and  the  feeling  of  the 
community  in  which  I  resided,  that  Free-State  men  might  come 
and  intermix  among  us  in  the  Territory  in  a  friendly  and  social 
manner,  and  advocate  the  policy  of  making  it  a  free  State;  and  if, 
in  organizing  the  Territory  into  a  State,  they  should  have  a  ma 
jority,  we  were  prepared  to  submit  to  it  in  peace  and  quietness." 

I  stated  as  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  South  was  forced  to  take 
the  'steps  leading  to  final  secession,  that  she  had  the  most  conclusive 
reasons  to  believe  that  illegal,  unwarranted  efforts  were  imminent 
to  interfere  in  the  internal  affairs  of  the  existing  States.     She 
learned  of  this  from  threats  and  overt  acts,  the  only  way  one  indi 
vidual  or  any  number  of  persons  can  judge  of  the  intention  of  any 
other  or  others.     The  South  was  boldly  told  by  this  party  of  rich 
agitating  Northerners  that  when  Northern  political  ambitions  had 
been  realized  in  Kansas,  first  Missouri  and  then  the  entire  agri 
cultural  South  would  be  dominated  by  this  Northern  exodus  and 
politically  incubated  emigration.     Is  there  a  Northern  State  that 
would  have  been  less  resentive  if  the  situation  had  been  reversed? 
Let  me  introduce  evidence  showing  that  first  Missouri  and  then  the 
South  acted  in  defence  against  this  movement.     On  this  point  the 
witness  which  we  have  just  heard  continued : 

"We  understood  and  believed,  from  the  declarations  of  men  of 
their  party  who  came  here,  and  what  we  saw  in  the  newspapers,  that 
the  ultimate  design  was  .to  effect  the  institutions  of  Missouri  and 
make  it  a  free-State.  .  .  .  Emigrant  Aid  men  told  me  that  they  were 
pledged  before  they  left  home  to  make  it  a  free- State."3' 

On  the  same  point  hear  another  creditable  witness,  likewise  under 
oath : 


895Evidence,  p.  855. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  195 

"The  first  thing  that  excited  and  alarmed  the  Missourians  was 
the  incorporation  by  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  of  a  corpora 
tion  with  a  capital  of  five  million  dollars,  as  was  understood  [it 
must  be  remembered  that  Xorthern  men  and  papers  reported  that 
this  was  the  correct  sum,  though.,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  left  to  the 
incorporators  to  fix  a  sum  not  exceeding  $5,000,000]  for  the  purpose 
of  colonizing  Kansas  Territory  with  abolitionists."3' 

A  man  by  the  name  of  Lincoln,  an  agent  for  some  of  these  aboli 
tion  organizations,  told  another  witness  that  the  object  was  to 
bring  men  to  Kansas  to  vote  it  a  free-State,  with  no  intention  on 
the  part  of  many  to  become  permanent  residents.  Others  declared 
that  they  had  come  for  no  purpose  other  than  to  vote.397  Another 
witness  met  a  colony  of  Englishmen  who  openly  declared  that  they 
had  been  paid  to  vote  with  the  Northern  men.398 

J.  H.  Day,  of  Minnesota,  under  oath,  stated  that  he  gathered  his 
understanding  of  what  the  Xorth  meant  to  do  from  literature  pur 
porting  to  be  issued  by  the  emigrant  aid  organizations,  and  from 
the  Xew  York  Tribune,  and  he  understood  that  after  they  had  con 
quered  Kansas,  "then  the  emigrants  were  to  pull  up  stakes  and 
move  to  other  places  and  do  likewise.  The  Tribune,  I  think,  said  .  .  . 
they  would  carry  the  war  into  Africa;  meaning  I  suppose  [d]  that 
they  would  commence  operations  in  Missouri.  This  I  understood  to 
be  the  case  before  I  came  into  the  Territory.  .  .  .  The  general  belief 
that  such  was  the  case  was  the  cause  of  the  difficulty  here."35  Such 
threats  and  declarations,  unaccompanied  by  any  movement,  might 
have  been  treated  lightly.  But  the  Xorth  not  only  talked;  she 
began  to  do  what  she  said  she  would  do.  Xot  a  few  in  Missouri 
knew  of  these  threats,  either.  Milton  J.  Payne,  of  Kansas  City,  in 
his  deposition,  says,  "It  was  a  general  rumor  that  they  intended  to 
make  this  [Kansas]  a  free-State,  and  then  interfere  in  the  affairs 
of  slavery  in  Missouri. "* 

These  depositions  are  not  exceptions.  What  they  say  is  not 
refuted  or  injured  by  other  evidence.  These  give  us  the  true  state 
of  the  Southern  knowledge  and  feeling.  They  show  that  by  threats 


^Evidence,  p.  863. 
397Evidence,  p.  1144. 
'^Evidence,  p.  854. 
399Evidence,  p.  526. 
^Evidence,  p.  837. 


1D(5          NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

and  acts  the  Xorth  alarmed  tlie  South.  If  a  Southern  emigration 
to-day  were  to  set  in  for  some  State  in  the  Xorth  with  the  avowed 
object  of  controlling  her  elections,  after  which  the  emigrants  and 
their  leaders  declared  they  meant  to  move  into  another  State  and 
shape  its  laws  according  to  their  ideas  and  conceptions,  the  Xorthern 
blood  would  warm  as  quickly  as  that  of  the  South  under  a  like  insult. 
By  no  means  are  we  left  to  the  depositions  alone.  Hear  once 
more  the  man  of  power  who  moved  the  Xorth  as  no  other  man  ever 
did,  who  wrought  upon  the  purse  strings  of  "rich  Xew  Englanders" 
so  that  single  individuals  put  thousands  at  his  disposal — for  in 
stance,  J.  M.  S.  Williams  subscribed  ten  thousand  dollars  and 
Charles  Francis  Adams  twenty-five  thousand401 — as  he  boasts  of  his 
willingness  to  overcome  the  weak,  as  he  exul  tangly  flaunts  in  the 
face  of  the  South  his  power,  Eli  Thayer,  "shrewd,  sharp-tongued," 
testifies  Schouler,402  declares  the  Xorth  was  conscious,  "That  in  this 
contest  the  South  had  not  one  element  of  success.  We  had  much 
greater  numbers/'  he  continues,  "much  greater  wealth,  greater 
readiness  of  organization,  and  better  facilities  of  migration.  That 
we  would  put  a  cordon  of  free  States  from  Minnesota  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  and  top  the  forming  of  slave  States.  After  that  we 
should  colonize  the  northern  border  States."*  This  interference 
"by  methods  neither  legal  nor  justifiable,"  in  the  local  affairs  of  the 
existing  States,  Thayer  had  in  mind  before  his  Emigrant  Aid  So 
ciety  was  incorporated,  the  movements  of  which  in  Kansas  were 
meant  to  be  merely  preliminary  to  deeper  plans.  Speaking  of  the 
charter  of  this  Emigrant  Aid  organization,  he  says,  "It  was  my  pur 
pose,  when  I  wrote  that  charter,  to  be  done  with  Kansas  in  1855, 
and  then,  without  loss  of  time  and  with  increased  capital,  to  have 
bought  up  large  tracts  of  worn-out  lands  in  Virginia.  Of  these  it 
was  my  purpose  to  give  one-half,  in  forty-acre  lots,  to  our  emigrants 
in  the  free  States.  The  remaining  half  would  be  worth  not  less 
than  four  times  the  whole  cost,  as  soon  as  the  emigrants  had  occu 
pied  their  homesteads.  Two  years  of  such  work,  by  such  a  com 
pany,  in  Virginia,  would  have  made  her  as  secure  for  the  Union  in 
1861  as  Massachusetts  was."404  At  the  time  their  movements  to 


401Thayer,  The  Kansas  Crusade,  33. 
<02History  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  323. 
403The  Kansas  Crusade,  32. 
40*Ib.,  59. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  197 

Kansas  were  materializing,  the  plans  against  the  Southern  States 
at  large  were  known  from  the  halls  of  Congress  to  the  remotest  fron 
tiers.  The  South  was  advised  that  they  proposed  "at  all  hazards" 
to  take  Kansas,  "And  further,  that  whenever  the  Territory  shall  be 
organized  as  a  free  State  the  trustee  shall  dispose  of  all  its  [the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company]  interests  there,  replace  by  the  sales  the 
money  laid  out,  declare  a  dividend  to  the  stockholders,  and  that 
they  then  select  a  new  field,  and  make  similar  arrangements  for  the 
settlement  and  organization  of  another  free  State.'7405  Thus  in 
books  which  were  issued  before  the  contest  began,  in  their  pros 
pectus,  and  through  the  declarations  of  their  emigrants,  the  aggres 
sive  challenge  went  forth  from  the  officers  of  these  Northern  or 
ganizations. 

I  do  not  overestimate  the  power  and  influence  of  this  Thayer 
movement.  When  the  South  took  alarm  at  it  her  fears  were  well 
founded.  Says  Schouler,  "The  inspirational  force  of  Thayer  and  his 
parent  company  led  to  the  formation  of  hundred's  of  Kansas  leagues 
and  Kansas  committees  in  our  Northern  States,  all  loyal  to  one  an 
other,  all  combined  for  a  common  purpose."40  Mr.  Schouler  relies 
upon  -Thayer  as  his  authority,  together  with  Prof.  Spring,  whom  I 
have  frequently  quoted.  He  says  that  this  Northern  movement  pro 
posed,  "in  the  first  place,  to  make  Kansas  a  free  State,  and  then 
to  sell  out  and  select  and  settle  some  other  field,  and  so  go  on  until 
every  possible  area  of  the  Union  became  reclaimed  by  the  genius  of 
free  labor."*  A  "magnificent"  "enterprise,"  exclaims  Mr.  Schouler 
in  admiration  and  approval ! 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  my  examination  of  the  elections, 
I  showed  that  by  granting  all  the  fraud  had  been  on  the  Southern 
side,  and  that  all  the  illegal  votes  had  been  cast  by  Missourians  not 
entitled  to  vote,  even  then  the  Southern  ticket  was  legally  elected. 
I  desire  now  to  offer  cumulative  evidence  to  bear  out  my  statement 
that  much  fraud  and  illegality  were  perpetrated  by  Northerners, 
and  that  the  statements  in  the  histories  that  illegality  and  intimi 
dation  won  a  Southern  victory  are  untrue.  Hence,  I  subjoin  a  few 
extracts  from  representative  witnesses,  who  deposed  before  the  Con- 

*°5App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  97. 

««History  U.  S.  (Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1891),  Vol.  V.,  p.  325-6. 

40TIb.,  324. 


198  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

gressional  committee,,  which  show  the  true  state  of  affairs  at  the 
time. 

Adam  Fisher,  a  free-State  man,  said,  "I  do  not  know  of  any 
Free-State  man  being  deterred  .  .  .  from  voting  on  account  of  his 
political  views.""  Northern  men  secured  non-resident  steamboat 
hands  to  vote  the  abolition  ticket.400  About  one  hundred  Eastern 
emigrants  wintered  in  Kansas  City,  went  over  to  the  spring  election, 
and  immediately  returned  going  North  again.410  One  passenger 
agent  carried  hundreds  of  Northern  emigrants,  "the  majority  had 
satchels"  only,  and  "some  had  no  baggage  at  all,"  and  some  said 
they  would  go  home  after  the  election,  as  they  had  come  merely  to 
vote.411  Another  witness  saw  many  abolitionists,  who  said  they  were 
going  to  vote,  on  their  way  back  going  North  again  after  the  elec 
tion.412  Hundreds  had  no  "apparent  implements  of  husbandry,  with 
but  carpet  sacks.  .  .  ."41  Many  of  the  Northern  people  were  boastful 
and  made  loud  threats.  Speaking  of  them,  a  Kajisas  merchant  in 
his  deposition  says,  "I  do  not  think  their  baggage  looked  like  that 
of  emigrants  who  intended  to  remain.  ...  I  think  after  the  elec 
tion  they  went  back  as  fast  as  they  came  before  the  election.  .  .  . 
Those  I  heard  speak,  and  who  appeared  to  be  leaders,  said  they  were 
coming  to  Kansas  to  vote."414  C.  E.  Kearney,  a  steamboat  captain 
on  the  Missouri  river,  says  one  hundred  and  fifty  abolition  emi 
grants  offered  at  one  time  "double  paissage  to  be  brought  up  in  time 
for  the  election,"415  In  Lawrence,  Mr.  Pomeroy,  who  was  an  agent 
for  one  of  the  emigrant  societies,  led  in  one  string,  like  marching 
soldiers,  about  one  hundred  newly-arrived  emigrants,  off  the  boats 
but  a  few  hours,  to  the  polls  and  voted  them.418  Another  witness 
says: 

"Dr.  Eobinson  had  been  gone  East,  so  I  was  told,  and  he  returned 
to  town  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  election,  and  the  first  I  saw  of 
him  was  coming  across  from  Lawrence  to  the  polls  of  the  election 


^Evidence,  p.  529. 
^Ib.,  531. 
*10Ib.,  835-6. 
*"IbM  854. 
412Ib.,  846. 
*13Ib.,  846. 
*"Ib.,  850. 
415Ib.,  852. 
«0Ib.,  166. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  199 

with  fifty  or  one  hundred  men,  quite  a  string  of  them  marching  up 
to  the  polls.  He  marched  them  right  up  to  the  polls,  and  they  voted 
the  Free-State  ticket,  and  then  he  marched  them  back.  They  were 
all  strangers  to  me,  and  he  had  just  come  in  with  them  that  day.  I 
knew  most  of  the  Free-State  men  residing  in  the  district  at  that 
time."417 

This  was  at  the  election  of  March  30,  1855,  the  second  election 
held  in  the  Territory,  and  the  one  at  which  the  legislature,  so  vig 
orously  repudiated  by  the  North,  was  elected.  These  men  could  not 
by  any  possibility  have  legally  voted ;  they  were  just  from  the  North 
a  few  hours,  and  had  not  had  the  requisite  residence  under  the  pre 
scribed  regulations.  But  read  carefully  as  we  may  all  the  histories 
which  we  quoted  on  early  Kansas  elections  some  pages  back,  and 
many  others  like  them,  and  not  an  intimation  of  such  acts  of  il 
legality  on  the  part  of  the  North  do  we  find.  No,  not  one !  That 
the  facts  here  given  are  true  there  is  not  the  least  doubt.  They 
were  not  disputed.  Many  historians  have  not  told  the  whole  story. 
We  are  told  that  Missourians  voted  illegal  votes,  but  we  are  not  told 
that  such  things  as  we  have  seen  and  the  following  were  the  true 
and  reasonable  cause  for  whatever  the  Missourians  or  other  South 
ern  men  did. 

"Mr.  Brown,  the  editor  of  the  Herald  of  Freedom  [Lawrence 
paper]  stated  on  the  day  of  the  nomination  that  there  need  be  no 
fear  about  their  [abolitionists,  or  Free-State  party]  being  beaten,  as 
he  had  just  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Slater  [agent  of  the  Northern 
societies]  of  St.  Louis,  informing  him  that  there  were  between  six 
and  eight  hundred  Eastern  men  on  the  river  on  the  way  up,  and 
would  be  up  the  day  of  the  election,  and  three  hundred  would  be  at 
Lawrence.  [And  a  large  number  actually  did  arrive  and  vote  on  the 
day  of  the  election.]  This  thing  was  well  understood,  and  the  Mis 
sourians  heard  of  it."418 

The  fact  that  the  true  record  of  the  North  in  Kansas  is  either 
not  told  or  obscured,  and  that  continually  we  are  reminded  of  the 
movements  by  Missouri  "ruffians"  and  Southern  men  without 
"statesmanship  or  strategic  ability/'  is  an  open  admission  that  there 
are  wrongs  and  illegalities  which  some  one  fain  would  hide.  What 


160. 
166. 


200  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

we  here  see  is  but  one  step  in  the  long  ladder  that  led  down  to  the 
Civil  War. 

The  rebellion  in  Kansas  was  an  exotic — indigenous  to  the  soil  of 
the  North,  and  first  cultivated  in  Massachusetts.  Prior  to  the  pas 
sage  of  the  bill  which  gave  both  sections  of  the  country  an  equal 
opportunity  for  settlement  in  Kansas  and  other  new  territories,  on 
February  27,  1854,  at  Pittsfield,  Mass.,  a  large  public  meeting, 
among  its  resolutions  declared  that  "the  citizens  of  the  Free-States, 
must  and  will,  at  all  hazards,  and  through  all  time,  insist  that 
slavery  shall  never  be  permitted  north  of  36°  30'."41U  Here  is  noth 
ing  less  than  a  declaration  of  war.  It  can  by  no  possibility  be  con 
strued  to  mean  more,  and  certainly  not  loss  than  that  Massachu 
setts  will  not  submit  to  republican  government  even  where  no  in 
juries  are  being  inflicted  upon  her, — unless  her  interpretation  of 
that  government  be  accepted.  Such  position  is  in  full  keeping  with 
her  past.  It  is  the  spirit  of  her  then  venerable  J.  Q.  Adams  who, 
backed  by  a  petition  from  Massachusetts  citizens,  on  the  14th  of 
June,  1842,  presented  the  petition  and  moved  "praying  Congress 
to  adopt  immediate  measures  for  the  peaceful  dissolution  of  the 
Union  of  these  States."  Between  the  insubordination  of  Massa 
chusetts  and  the  rebellion  in  Kansas  there  is  but  one  distinction: 
in  Kansas  subterfuge  and  prevarication  both  united  to  fill  the  place 
left  vacant  for  want  of  justification. 

The  insubordinate  Kansas  legislature  sent  Lane,  a  man  who  had 
played  on  both  sides,  and  ex-Governor  Eeeder,  a  man  who  sought 
office  at  the  expense  of  honesty,  to  Congress  to  present  a  memorial, 
exhibit  what  they  claimed  to  be  a  constitution,  and  asks  that  Kan 
sas  be  admitted  as  a  State,  and  that  the  bearers  thereof  be  admitted 
as  United  States  Senators !  This  memorial,  after  setting  out  a  num 
ber  of  laws  enacted  by  the  rightful  body  of  legislators,  proceeded 
to  declare  that  "it  was  the  enactment  of  such  laws  that  forced  the 
people  of  Kansas  to  take  the  initiative  step  toward  the  formation  of 
a  state  government."42 

I  have  already  pointed  out  that  G-overnor  Eobinson,  the  man 
whom  this  faction  claimed  to  have  elected  as  their  chief  executive, 
admitted  that  armed  repudiation  anticipated  by  some  months  the 

419Cong.  Globe. 

.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  89  to  217,  383. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  201 

acts  of  the  lawful  legislature.  It  now  remains  to  notice  briefly  the 
thoroughness  and  scope  of  the  seditious  movement  thus  early  in 
augurated.  This  will  show  the  growing  danger  to  the  South;  and, 
since  Northern  cooperation  has  been  shown,  it  will  be  seen  that 
when  this  Northern  party  cooperated  in  the  election  of  Lincoln,  who 
had  sworn  allegiance  to  their  doctrine,  the  national  character  of  the 
danger  became  more  imminent. 

The  Northern  people  who  furnished  Sharp's  rifles — "Beecher 
Bibles" — and  mountain  cannon  declared  that  they  "had  also  sent 
and  would  continue  to  send  men  and  means  to  make  Kansas  a  free 
state  by  force,  if  necessary."  On  the  scene  of  the  conflict  no  secret 
was  made  of  the  fact  that  the  conspirators  were  depending  upon  the 
North  for  both  moral  and  material  support.  Such  men  as  Robin 
son,  Eeeder,  Lane,  Brown,  and  others,  "captains  of  sedition,"  have 
made  no  secret  of  the  fact  that  "by  forming  a  free- State  constitu 
tion  they  could  get  the  aid  and  sympathy  of  the  North  to  help  them 
enforce  their  provisional  laws."421  The  Boston  and  other  abolition 
capitalists  built  a  large  house  in  Lawrence,  providing  it  with  port 
holes  for  guns,  because  they  said  they  expected  to  come  into  collision 
with  the  Territorial  authorities.  Their  leaders,  such  as  G.  W. 
Brown,  Dr.  Eobinson,  Dr.  G.  A.  Cutter,  C.  W.  Steward,  and  others, 
made  boastful  public  speeches,  in  which  they  urged  the  organization 
of  secret  societies  for  resisting  the  authorities.  "Abolitionists  re 
ceived  their  speeches  with  applause."*2  The  fact  that  all  of  them 
made  no  excuse  for  marshaling  military  companies  other  than  an 
intention  to  resist  the  laws  enacted  by  the  legislature  which  Gov 
ernor  Eeeder  had  convened  pursuant  to  election  of  March  30,  1855, 
should  be  all  the  evidence  needed  to  show  that  there  was  no  real 
need  for  such  belligerent  preparations;  all  these  guns  and  drilled 
companies  were  not  needed,  nor  any  considerable  fraction  of  them, 
for  purely  legitimate  protection  of  person  and  property.  Yet  writ 
ers  generally  in  treating  of  these  things  try  to  leave  the  impression 
that  a  hostile  invasion  from  the  "border  ruffians"  of  Missouri,  or 
some  other  section  of  the  South,  was  both  threatened  and  made. 
Legal  officers,  now  and  then  accompanied  by  Missourians, — and  a 
few  individual  exceptions  which  were  not  legal, — made  efforts  fre- 


*21Minority  Report,  Sp.  Kan.  Com.,  1  sess.,  34  Cong.,  87. 
*22Report,  Sp.  Kan.  Com.,  1  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Evidence,  907. 


202  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

quently  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Territory.  But  whatever  oc 
curred  in  the  nature  of  an  "invasion"  took  place  many  months  after 
the  sedition  and  rebellion  had  been  in  actual  armed  progress. 
Neither  these  abolition  rebels,  nor  their  Northern  allies,  appealed  to 
the  United  States  soldiery  for  protection,  as  they  had  a  right  to  do 
if  such  protection  were  needed, — except  in  a  way  and  under  assumed 
authority  such  that  the  request  itself  was  a  defiance  to  the  very  act 
of  Congress  which  yet  made  Kansas  a  Territory.  For  instance,  Sep 
tember  3,  1856,  H.  Miles  Moore,  who  claimed  to  be  acting  for  the 
Kansas  State  Central  Committee,  requested  the  officers  in  command 
of.  United  States  troops  in  Kansas  to  lend  them  specified  assistance. 
In  his  report  of  September  5th,  Adj.-Gen.  Deas  said,  with  refer 
ence  to  this  appeal :  "The  State  of  Kansas  is  not  recognized  by  any 
portion  of  the  general  government,  and  the  commanding  general 
could,  therefore,  hold  no  official  correspondence  with  Mr.  Moore  in 
his  assumed  position,  or  office,  as  indicated  in  his  communica 
tion."4'  From  the  first  and  for  years  following  they  requested  and 
received  money,  men,  and  guns  from  the  North,  not  for  protection, 
but  to  resist  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the  "bogus"  legislature, 
and  the  acts  of  the  Territorial  officers,  in  an  effort  to  sustain  the 
Topeka  government  and  the  "State  of  Kansas."  And  not  against 
the  Territorial  laws  and  officers  only;  they  were  in  rebellion  against 
the  United  States, — its  President  and  laws  and  soldiery. 

September  5,  1855,  pursuant  to  a  call  from  the  leaders,  and  after 
a  thorough  canvass  of  the  Territory,  the  insurrectionists  met  in 
convention  at  Big  Springs.  A  Northern  man  introduced  the  fol 
lowing  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  every  reliable  Free-State  man  in  this  Terri 
tory  be  furnished  with  a  rifle,  a  brace  of  pistols,  and  a  sabre, 
gratis ;  [I  am  sure  it  was  a  mere  oversight  that  the  bowie-knife  was 
not  added;  and  as  to  the  feathers  for  the  head,  it  is  likely  they 
meant  to  obtain  these  from  scalps  obtained  from  "Missouri  ruf 
fians"]  and  that  he  be  required  to  take  an  oath  to  come  when  called 
upon,  and  muster  into  service  under  his  superior  officer,  and  to 
sacrifice  his  life  if  necessary,  to  secure  the  person  and  property  of 
any  person  who  would  be  brought  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pres 
ent  laws  of  this  Territory." 

.  Docs.,  3  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  IIT.,  No.  5,  99. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  203 

Armed  by  the  North,  encouraged  by  the  North,  here  on  the  Kan 
sas  plains  is  a  declaration  of  war.  It  is  open  rebellion  against  Ter 
ritorial  and  Federal  authority.  The  Governor,  Mr.  Shannon,  Gov 
ernor  Eeeder's  successor,  was  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  ap 
pointed  by  the  President,  He  was  charged  with  the  execution  of 
the  Territorial  laws;  this  "open  and  avowed  renunciation  of  the 
government"  to  which  all  owed  allegiance  was  rebellion  against  the 
Federal  authority.  Even  if  it  had  been  possible  to  resist  the  Ter 
ritorial  laws  without  resisting  the  Federal  laws  and  officers  at  the 
same  time,  this  led  to  resistance  and  to  open  contact  with  the  Fed 
eral  government.  The  whole  affair  was  a  vicious  move,  with  the 
abolition  sympathy  of  the  North  behind  it.  If  other  events  had  not 
hastened  the  withdrawal  of  Southern  Senators  and  Representatives 
from  Congress  in  18GO-"62,  thirs  leaving  the  Republican  party  of 
the  North,  the  immediate  successors  of  the  abolitionists  (most  cer 
tainly  the  successors  of  the  free-State  abolitionists)  in  control  of 
the  national  legislature — owing  partly  to  which  fact  Kansas  became 
a  member  of  the  Union  with  what  is  known  as  the  Wyandotte  Con 
stitution, — the  North  would  have  been  the  secessionists.  Other 
wise  we  must  believe  that  hundreds  of  resolutions  like  the  one  at 
Pittsfield,  Mass.,  in  1854,  and  the  one  offered  in  Congress  in  June, 
1842,  by  the  venerable  J.  Q.  Adams,  were  biit  the  meaningless  prat 
tle  of  little  children. 

To  return  to  the  Big  Springs'  convention.  Loud  cheers  and  hur 
rahs  greeted  the  resolution.  Dr.  C.  Robinson,  whom  his  party  made 
governor  as  soon  as  the  excitement  of  the  Civil  War  diverted  the 
attention  of  the  South,  was  the  presiding  officer.  "Ex-Governor 
A.  H.  Reeder  urged  the  people  to  bloodshed  and  rebellion,  while 
they  listened  to  him  as  though  he  were  one  of  the  prophets  and  pa 
triarchs  of  old."  Throughout  the  Territory  leading  abolitionists 
"openly  boasted  that  they  had  helped  to  run  off  negroes  from  the 
South  into  Canada,  and  hoped  the  day  was  near  at  hand  when  they 
would  succeed  in  all  their  designs,  and  settle  those  gentlemen  of 
color  along  the  shores  of  Kansas,  where  they  could  make  war  on  the 
institutions  of  the  South,  particularly  of  Missouri.  .  .  .  Such  are 
the  principles  of  those  who  keep  Kansas  in  a  state  of  rebellion,  and 
such  are  the  men  who  are  the  leaders  of  the  leaders  of  the  aboli 
tionists — leading  them  on  to  thievery,  treason,  and  death."42 

"4R.  Com.,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  Minority  Report,  91. 


204  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

The  organization  of  the  sedition  forces  was  thorough.  Through 
out  the  Territory,  where  they  could  .be  gathered,  companies  were 
drilled,  and  secret  societies,  such  as  the  "Kansas  Regulators," 
flourished.  The  secret  political  organizations  used  as  a  badge  one 
or  more  "black  ribbons  tied  in  the  shirt  bosom."  Reeder,  Lane, 
Robinson,  and  other  prominent  leaders,  wore  this  badge  conspicu 
ously.  The  following  is  the  "grand  obligation"  which  was  solemnly 
administered  to  members : 

"I,  .  .  .,  of  my  own  free-will  and  accord,  in  the  presence  of  Al 
mighty  God  and  these  witnesses,  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  al 
ways  hail,  forever  conceal,  and  never  reveal  any  of  the  secrets  of 
this  organization  to  any  person  in  the  known  world,  except  it  be 
to  a  member  of  the  order,  or  within  the  body  of  a  just  and  legal 
council.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will  not  write, 
print,  stain,  or  indite  on  anything  movable  or  immovable,  whereby 
the  least  figure  or  character  may  become  intelligible  to  myself  or 
any  other  person.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will  at 
all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  hold  myself  in  readiness  to 
obey,  even  to  death,  the  orders  of  my  superior  officers.  ...  I  fur 
thermore  promise  and  swear,  that  all  business  that  I  may  transact, 
so  far  as  is  in  my  power,  shall  be  transacted  with  free- State  men. 
I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will  at  all  times  and  under 
all  circumstance's,  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  take  up  arms  in  de 
fence  of  free^State  principles,  even  though  it  should  subvert  the 
government.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will  at  all 
times  and  under  all  circumstances,  wear  upon  my  person  the  re 
galia  of  my  office  and  the  insignia.  ...  I  furthermore  swear,  that 
I  will  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  wear  upon  my  per 
son  a  weapon  of  death.  I  furthermOTe  promise  and  swear,  that  I  will 
at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  keep  in  my  house  at  least 
one  gun,  with  a  full  supply  of  ammunition.  I  furthermore  promise 
and  swear,  that  I  will  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  when  I 
see  the  sign  of  distress  given,  rush  to  the  assistance  of  the  person 
giving  it,  even  when  there  is  a  greater  probability  of  saving  his  life 
than  of  losing  my  own.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  I 
will,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  oppose  the  laws  of  the  so-called 
Kansas  legislature.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  when  I 
hear  the  danger  signal  given,  I  will  repair  to  the  place  where  the 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  205 

danger  is.  I  furthermore  promise  and  swear,  that  if  any  part  of 
this  obligation  is  at  this  time  omitted,,  I  will  consider  the  same  as 
binding  when  legally  informed  of  it.  I  furthermore  promise  and 
swear,  that  at  the  convenient  opportunity,  I  will  commit  this  obli 
gation  to  memory.  To  all  this  I  solemnly  swear,  without  equivo 
cation  or  self-evasion,  binding  myself  under  the  penalty  of  being 
declared  a  perjurer  before  Heaven  and  a  traitor  to  my  country/' 

Signs,  grips,  and  pass-words  were  used.425  In  connection  with 
this  it  is  interesting  as  showing  that  the  seditionists  meant  to  stop 
short  of  nothing,  to  note  the  declaration  of  a  prominent  leader,  who 
declared  that  "...  if  need  be  we  will  resist  even  the  United  States 
troops  if  they  attempt  to  enforce  those  laws/"741  By  "those  laws" 
he  meant  the  laws  of  the  Territory  as  enacted  by  the  legislature  of 
March  30th. 

There  is  some  evidence  tending  to  contradict  the  exact  wording 
of  the  above  oath.  But  shortly  after  knowledge  of  it  was  obtained 
by  the  witness  who  gave  it  to  the  country  and  to  the  Congressional 
committee,  March  29,  1856,  he  went  before  a  grand  jury  and  di 
vulged  the  whole  affair,  and  gave  the  names  of  those  present,  who 
aided,  etc.,  when  he  first  heard  the  oath  administered.427  Those  men 
were  summoned  before  the  jury,  but  they  either  entirely  refused  to 
speak  on  the  point  or  evaded  the  questions  asked  them.  However, 
in  his  deposition,  Governor  Eeeder  practically  corroborates  the 
wording  as  I  have  given  it,  thus  leaving  no  doubt  of  its  substantial 
correctness,  most  likely  establishing  its  literal  accuracy. 

The  plight  in  which  the  ex-governor  exhibits  himself  during  his 
deposition  is  almost  pitiful.  He  says  he  had  known  the  name  of  the 
society  who  administered  this  "grand  obligation,"  but  that  he  had  • 
forgotten  it !  He  also  states,  "As  to  the  laws  of  the  so-called  Kan 
sas  legislature,  that  any  pledge  was  made  in  regard  to  them,  it  is 
possible  that  there  may  have  been  a  pledge  to  oppose,  disavow,  or 
repudiate  them  as  not  binding,  and  not  to  avail  myself  of  them,  and 
such  a  promise  I  may  have  made  and  forgotteu."428  A  bolder  attempt 
to  evade  the  truth  is  scarcely  to  be  found  in  our  history.  In  more 
than  one  place  he  contradicts  former  statements.  Yet  upon  this 

«5See  Evidence,  910. 

""Evidence,  915. 

42TKan.  Historical  Cols.,  Vol.  I.,  411-12-13;  Minority  Kept.,  91  et  seq. 

""Evidence,  947. 


206  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

man's  story  prominent  historians  base  their  version  of  the  early 
elections  and  the  part  taken  therein  by  Missourians.  Hear  Mr. 
Rhodes  on  this  point:  "There  could  be  no  dispute  about  the  facts. 
Eeeder  came  East  and  told  the  story.""9 

This  is  the  same  man  who,  as  governor  in  his  message  of  July  3, 
1855,  to  this  same  legislature  whose  laws  he  later  took  this  oath  to 
spurn  and  resist,  said,  "Claiming  as  we  do  the  same  capacity  for 
self-government  as  our  fellow-citizens  of  the  States,  with  a  far 
greater,  if  not  an  exclusive  interest  in  the  institutions  and  laws 
which  are  to  exist  among  us;  compelled  alone  to  bear  their  burdens, 
and  entitled  alone  to  claim  their  benefits,  wisdom,  justice,  and  fair 
ness,  would  declare  that  those  laws  and  institutions,  inside  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  should  be  moulded  by  ourselves, 
stimulated  by  the  absorbing  interest  we  must  feel  in  them,  rather 
than  by  the  citizens  or  representatives  of  other  states,  who  are  no 
more  competent  to  the  task  than  we,  who  have  no  stake  with  us  in 
their  results,  and  who  would  most  indignantly  repel  any  offer  of 
reciprocity  from  us  in  assisting  to  manage  their  affairs.  The  pro 
visions  of  our  territorial  organic  act  secure  us  this  right,  and  is 
founded  in  the  true  doctrine  of  republicanism."  And  a  little  fur 
ther  on :  "An  agitation  of"  "the  slavery  question  in  the  direction  of 
an  attack  upon  constitutional  rights,"  "such  as  we  have  seen  indus 
triously  prosecuted  in  the  past  history  of  our  country  by  the  de 
structive  spirit  of  abolitionism,  can  never  be  productive  of  aught 
but  evil,  .  .  .  and  is  calculated  to  endanger  the  existence  of  our 
cherished  Union.  A  want  of  fidelity  to  the  solemn  compacts  of  the 
Constitution,  and  an  attack  upon  the  rights  of  the  -states  which  are 
governed  by  it,  can  have  no  justification  or  excuse."430 

On  November  28,  1855,  Governor  Wilson  Shannon  transmitted 
a  lengthy  document  to  President  Pierce,  setting  o<ut  fully  the  state 
of  affairs  in  Kansas.  Among  other  things  he  said,  "Affairs  in  this 
Territory  are  daily  assuming  a  shape  of  real  danger  to  the  peace 
and  good  order  of  society.  I  am  well  satisfied  that  there  existe  in 
this  Territory  a  secret  military  organization  which  has  for  its  object, 
among  other  things,  resistance  to  the  laws  by  force. 

"Until  within  a  few  days  past  I  have  looked  upon  the  threats  of 

*21History  U.  S.   (Harper  Bros..  '93),  Vol.  II.,  p.  83. 
«°5  Kan.  Historical  Cols.,  193. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  207 

leading  men  and  public  papers  who  have  placed  themselves  in  an 
attitude  of  resistance  to  the  laws,  as  not  intended  by  those  who  made 
them  to  be  carried  into  execution.  I  am  now  satisfied  of  the  exist 
ence  of  this  secret  military  organization,  and  that  those  engaged  in 
it  have  been  secretly  supplied  with  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  and 
that  it  is  the  object  and  purpose  of  this  organization  to  resist  the 
laws  by  force." 

On  November  31,  1855,  Dow  was  killed  by  Coleman.  As  I  have 
already  shown,  men  armed  with  Sharp's  rifles  resisted  the  officers 
who  attempted  to  execute  the  laws  after  that  affair,  and  concerning 
this  matter  the  governor  says,  "In  the  'settlement  in  which  these 
transactions  took  place  there  were  from  sixteen  to  twenty  law  and 
order  families,  and  about  one  hundred  free-soil  families.  At  the 
last  advices  three  of  the  houses  of  the  former  [who  were  the  South 
ern  families]  had  been  burnt  down  by  this  armed  band.  Cattle  had 
been  killed,  and  a  considerable  amount  of  corn  and  other  personal 
property  destroyed,  and  the  whole  law  and  order  population  of  that 
neighborhood,  induced  by  terror,  had  fled,  except  two  families^  whose 
lives  were  threatened.  Helpless  women  and  children  have  been 
forced  by  fear  and  threats  to  flee  from  their  homes." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Governor  Shannon  had  not  alone  these 
acts  of  small  bodies  of  armed  men  upon  which  to  base  his  conclu 
sions,  but  that  he  had  the  expression  of  almost  the  entire  abolition 
population  gathered  in  a  large  and  representative  convention  on 
August  14th  and  loth  prior  to  the  above  message.  This  convention 
had  unanimously  passed  a  resolution  saying,  among  other  things, 
that  "the  people  of  Kansas  have  been,  since  its  settlement,  and  now 
are,  without  any  law-making  power/'  and  that  the  people  should 
meet  for  the  formation  of  a  "state  constitution."  There  was  then 
a  call  out,  issued  by  the  leading  Northern  sympathizers,  for  the 
famous  Topeka  convention,  and  this  call  was  endorsed  by  the  con 
vention  of  14th  and  15th.  After  extensive  advertising,  another 
large  convention  of  the  insurrectionists  met  at  Big  Springs  Septem 
ber  5th, — which  I  have  already  mentioned.  This  gathering  passed 
some  daring  resolutions,  and  renewed  their  repudiation  of  the  legis 
lature  and  all  laws  passed  by  it.  They  said,  "We  owe  no  allegiance 
or  obedience  to  the  enactments  of  the  spurious  legislature  .  .  .  every 
man  is  at  liberty  to  resist  them  ...  we  will  endure  and  submit  to 


208  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

these  laws  no  longer  .  .  .  and  will  resist  them  to  a  bloody  issue  .  .  . 
we  recommend  the  organization  and  discipline  of  volunteer  compa 
nies,  and  the  procurement  and  preparation  of  arms/'431  But,  arms 
had  already  been  procured.  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
about  the  1st  of  April  prior  to  these  conventions,,  Major  Abbott  had 
arrived  in  Kansas  with  the  first  instalment  of  Sharp's  rifles/32  and 
that  on  August  20th  of  this  same  year  Mr.  Lawrence  had  written 
concerning  another  supply  of  guns,  "This  instalment  of  carbines  is 
far  from  being  enough.  I  hope  the  measures  you  are  taking  will  be 
followed  up  until  every  organized  company  of  trusty  men  in  the 
Territory  shall  be  supplied."4'  He  had  declared  his  readiness  to 
furnish  all  that  would  be  wanted,  the  North  had  been  canvassed, 
Thayer,  "like  a  flaming  meteor,"  had  aroused  the  North,  men  had 
been  furnished,  money  raised  by  popular  subscription  had  been  do 
nated  :  the  rebellion  was  well  planned,  lavishly  aided,  warmly  en 
couraged,  and  constantly  supported  by  dangerous  numbers  through 
out  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  North.  Organized  companies, 
sworn  secret  organizations,  abundant  improved  arms  accompanied 
by  all  the  needed  munitions  of  war,  open  acts  of  violence,  bloodshed, 
and  sedition  in  Kansas,  paved  the  way  for  the  consummation  and 
operations  of  the  Topeka  pseudo  government.  The  most  unquali 
fied  popular  free-State  aid  was  rendered  the  completion  and  sus 
tenance  of  this  rival  government.  Thus  hostilities  which  had  begun 
in  the  Branson  rescue  came  rapidly  with  an  ever-widening  sweep. 


Annals  of  Kan.,  55. 
«2Supra,  183-4. 
<33Supra. 


X. 

CUMULATIVE     EVIDENCE    OF     NORTHERN 
REBELLION. 

FURTHER  LIGHT  FROM  OFFICIAL  RECORDS. 

From  a  study  of  Robinson's,  Thayer's,  Spring's,  and  many  similar 
writers,  respective  histories,  and  the  works  of  all  who  may  be  called 
contemporaries  with  the  events  under  consideration  who  have  writ 
ten  from  a  Northern  standpoint,  the  student  will  readily  see  that  an 
effort  is  constantly  made  to  leave  the  impression  that,  no  matter  how 
greatly  the  Territorial  legislature's  laws  were  detested  and  spurned, 
the  insurgents  bowed  loyally  in  recognition  of  the  dignity  and  au 
thority  of  the  United  States.     Most  of  the  books  touching  this  pe 
riod  have  been  written  in  the  light  of  later  years.     To  tell  the  en 
tire  story  is  to  criminate  the  North— a  great  body  of  the  North, 
"rich  New  Englanders,"  to  use  Mr.  Channing's  words,  for  whose 
actions  the  North  as  a  whole  must  be  held  accountable  just  as  the 
North  holds  the  South  accountable  for  what  a  large  and  influential 
class  of  her  people  did.     Bosser  Johnson,  an  ex-Union  officer,  and 
among  the  most  bitter  of  partizan  writers,  admits  that  "carloads 
of  improved  rifles,  paid  for  by  popular  subscription,  were  sent  to  the 
Free-State  settlers."434    Whatever  resulted  from  this  "popular"  aid, 
the  private  abetment,  the  encouragement,  which  State  legislatures 
gave  by  legalizing  organizations  having  the  agitation  of  Kansas 
questions  in  view,  make  the  North  equally  guilty— "accessories  be 
fore  the  fact,"  to  use  a  legal  expression.    So  it  was  hoped  by  all  who 
have  written  having  Northern  prejudices  that  disloyalty  to  the 
Union,  which  the  North  professed  to  love  with  a  devotion  that  death 
only  could  destroy,  would  either  not  be  seen,  or  if  seen,  seen  under 
the  most  favorable  conditions.  Nevertheless,  rebellion  is  plainly  writ 
ten  upon  the  pages  of  Kansas  history ;  and  it  was  a  rebellion  limited 
in  scope  and  results  simply  because  events  forced  the  South  to  de- 


*31Short  History  of  the  Civil  War,  23. 
14 


210  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

clare  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  before  the  full  fruition  of  the 
Northern  scheme. 

Much  stress  has  been  placed  upon  what  is  called  the  attack  of 
Sheriff  Jones  upon  Lawrence  in  the  fall  of  1855.  We  have  seen  that 
Lawrence  was  the  stronghold  of  the  rebellion.  It  had  been  forti 
fied  and  well  armed.  Too  many  writers  have  left  us  to  believe  that 
this  so-called  attack  was  the  work  of  marauding  Missourians.  Such 
is  far  from  the  truth.  This  affair  grew  out  of  the  resistance  which 
the  insurgents  had  made  to  the  officers  who  were  going  about  their 
duty  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the  Territory,  and  who  had 
been  elected  at  the  election  of  March  30th,— the  legality  of  which 
election  I  maintain  has  been  fully  established.  As  stated  pre 
viously,  Dow  was  killed  November  21,  1855.433  In  harmony  with 
Northern  writers  generally,  the  distinguished  Northern  historian, 
Rhodes,  concerning  the  state  of  affairs  up  to  this  time  says,  "Until 
now  there  had  been  no  collision  between  the  opposing  forces  ...  in 
the  main,  the  contests  were  of  political  expedients."438  Fully  pre 
pared,  fully  armed,  and  seconded  by  wealthy  and  influential  men  in 
the  North,  the  seditionists  took  the  first  opportunity  to  carry  into 
practice  the  declarations  of  their  conventions,  of  their  papers,  of 
their  speakers,  and  of  their  supporters  and  backers.  It  will  be  re 
membered  that  the  fight  between  Coleman  and  Dow  grew  out  of  a 
dispute  over  a  land  claim.437  Which  of  these  was  to  blame  cannot 
now  be  known,  but  that  point  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  events  to 
which  it  gave  rise.  It  furnished  the  opportunity  for  which  the 
Northern  men  sought.  Coleman  was  in  the  hands  of  the  officers  and 
held  for  trial,  but  on  the  next  day  after  the  homicide  a  large  indig 
nation  gathering  of  Northern  men  met  at  the  scene  of  the  homicide ; 
without  waiting  for  the  action  of  the  civil  authorities,  they  openly 
swore  vengeance.  This  led  to  the  issuing  of  the  peace  warrants 
sworn  out  by  Harrison  Buckley,  one  of  the  men  whose  life  this 
riotous  gathering  had  threatened,  and  whose  private  dwelling,  to 
gether  with  that  of  prisoner  Coleman,  was  in  the  night  time  fired 
and  burned.  Five  days  after  the  shooting  of  Dow,  Branson,  one  of 
the  rioting  party,  was  arrested  under  the  process  held  by  the  offi- 


435Kan.  Historical  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  242,  supra. 

""History  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  103. 

437Repts.  Corns.,  2  sess.,  36  Cong.,  No.  104,  Vol.  III.,  pt.  1,  p.  14. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

cers.  J.  B.  Abbott,  who  previously  to  that  time  had  gone  North  and 
returned  to  Kansas  with  a  large  supply  of  Sharp's  rifles  and  other 
war  material,  and  S.  F.  Tappan,  who  was  the  clerk  of  the  "so-called 
Topeka  State  Government,"  led  twelve  or  fifteen  men  from  Law 
rence  and  vicinity,  armed  with  Sharp's  rifles  and  other  guns,  and 
intercepted  the  sheriff  and  his  prisoner.  By  intimidation  and  show 
of  force  they  compelled  the  officer  to  release  his  prisoner.438  Writs 
were  issued  for  these  Branson  rescuers,  who  had  retired  under  the 
protection  of  the  organized  forces  in  Lawrence.  Armed  with  these 
writs  and  under  orders  from  the  Federal  governor  and  accompanied 
by  the  militia,  Sheriff  Jones,  who  had  held  his  commission  from  the 
governor  since  August  previous,439  proceeded  to  Lawrence  for  the 
purpose  of  making  the  arrests.  It  was  well  known  that  the  Law 
rence  people  were  defiant,  well  armed,  and  threatening.  The  town 
was  known  to  be  the  military  headquarters  of  the  insurgents.  Eob- 
inson  had  by  them  been  elevated  to  the  rank  of  "Major-General"  of 
the  insurrectionary  forces.440  Both  he  and  "Colonel"  Lane  had 
headquarters  there.  These  facts  led  the  sheriff  to  take  a  large  force. 
Among  those  who  went  with  him  were  a  number  of  men  either  re 
cently  from  or  yet  living  in  Missouri.  While  it  was  entirely  legal 
for  the  Missourians  to  go,  since  a  Territory,  as  was  Kansas,  being 
under  the  peculiar  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  may  secure 
citizens  from  any  State  to  enforce  Territorial  laws  and  regula 
tions,441  yet  the  fact  that  Missourians  were  in  the  crowd  gives  the 
untenable  ground  for  the  claim  that  this  was  a  "Missouri  raid." 
Let  the  official  records  give  us  the  correct  version  of  the  part  taken 
by  Missourians  in  this  affair.  On  December  11,  shortly  after  the 
"raid"  or  "battle,"  Governor  Shannon,  in  an  official  report  to  Presi 
dent  Pierce,  says,  "...  Indeed,  the  militia  of  the  Territory  being 
wholly  unorganized,  no  force  could  be  obtained  except  those  who 
voluntarily  tendered  their  aid  to  the  sheriff,  or  to  Generals  Eichard- 
son,  and  Strickler.  The  whole  force  in  the  Territory  thus  obtained 
did  not  amount  to  more  than  three  or  four  hundred  men,  badly 
armed,  and  wholly  unprepared  to  resist  the  force  at  Lawrence,  which 


438In  the  government  document   containing  one  of  the  reports  of  the  Kansas 
affairs,  36  Cong.,  there  is  a  misprint  in  Abbott's  initial. 
«MKan.  Historical  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  281. 
^Spring,  History  Kan.,  33. 
*«Ib.,  255. 


212  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

amounted  at  tha,t  time  to  some  six  hundred  men,  all  remarkably 
well  armed  with  Sharp's  rifles  and  other  weapons.  These  facts  be 
coming  known  across  the  line  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  large  num 
bers  of  men  from  that  State,  in  irregular  bodies,  rushed  to  the 
county  of  Douglas,  and  many  of  them  enrolled  themselves  in  the 
sheriff's  posse.  ...  I  found  Generals  Richardson  and  Strickler  had 
very  judiciously  adopted  the  policy  of  incorporating  into  their  re 
spective  commands  all  the  irregular  forces  that  had  arrived.  This 
was  dome  with  a  view  to  subject  them  to  military  orders  and  disci 
pline,  and  to  prevent  any  unlawful  acts  or  outbreaks.  The  great 
danger  to  be  apprehended  was  from  an  unauthorized  attack  on  the 
town  of  Lawrence,  which  was  being  strongly  fortified  and  had  about 
one  thousand  and  fifty  men,  well  armed,  to  defend  it,  with  two  pieces 
of  artillery.  While  on  the  other  side,  there  were  probably  in  all  near 
two  thousand  men,  many  of  them  indifferently  armed,  but  having 
a  strong  park  of  artillery.  I  found  in  the  camp  at  Wakarusa  a  deep 
and  settled  feeling  of  hostility  against  the  opposing  forces  in  Law 
rence,  and  apparently  a  fixed  determination  to  attack  that  phice  and 
demolish  it  and  the  presses,  and  take  possession  of  their  arms.  It 
seemed  to  be  a  universal  opinion  in  camp  that  there  was  no  safety 
for  the  law  and  order  party  in  the  Territory  while  the  other  party 
were  permitted  to  retain  their  Sharp's  rifles,  an  instrument  used 
only  for  war  purposes."4'  The  forces  within  the  limits  of  the  town 
showed  the  muzzles  of  their  guns  and  held  off  the  sheriff's  party 
with  shot  and  shell.  After  much  ineffectual  firing  between  the 
pickets  of  the  two  parties,  the  strongly  fortified  position,  the  im 
proved  guns — two  hundred  of  the  insurgents  being  armed  with 
Sharp's  rifles,443  the  commanding  position  of  the  Northern  cannon, 
and  "the  five  small  forts"  which  commanded  the  approaches  of  the 
town,  and  within  the  lines  of  which  six  hundred  men  "drilled  in 
cessantly/'444  induced  Sheriff  Jones  and  the  militia  officers,  Generals 
Richardson  and  Strickler,  associated  with  him,  to  allow  Governor 
Shannon  to  enter  Lawrence  and  call  a  meeting  of  the  leading  in 
surrectionists  in  an  effort  at  pacification  in  whatever  way  the  pres 
ervation  of  peace  and  the  prevention  of  extensive  bloodshed,  might 


"2Sen.  Docs.,  3  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  II.,  64. 
443Spring,  History  Kans.,  92. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  213 

be  found  to  comport  with  a  due  enforcement  of  civil  law.  The  so 
lution  the  governor  thought  he  had  found.445  He  so  reported  to  the 
militia  and  those  who  had  come  from  Missouri,  whereupon  they 
quietly  retired.44'3  In  conclusion  of  the  negotiations,  a  "treaty"  was 
made  in  which  the  authorities  in  command  at  Lawrence,  Dr.  Rob- 
inson  being  conspicuous,  declared  "that  we  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  previous,  present,  or  prospective  existence  of  any  organization 
in  said  Territory  for 'resistance  of  the  laws";  they  then  pledged 
themselves  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law  when  called  upon 
by  the  "proper  authority  in  the  town  or  vicinity  of  Lawrence.""7 
February  14,  1856,  Dr.  Robinson  wrote  to  the  editor  of  the  Herald 
of  Freedom:  "He  [Governor  Shannon  at  time  mentioned  above] 
was  told  plainly,  as  were  the  parties  at  Franklin,  that  the  people  of 
Lawrence,  and  the  Territory  generally,  repudiated  the  Territorial 
legislature  and  its  acts,  but  there  was  no  organized  opposition  to 
them,  every  man  acting  as  he  thought  best."448  That  the  beleaguered 
insurrectionists  resorted  to  subterfuge, — played  the  governor  "a 
cute  Yankee  trick,"  as  one  of  them  expressed  it  to  G.  D.  Brewerton, 
of  the  Xew  York  Herald,  December,  '55,  which  gave  time  for  the 
fugitives  to  escape,449  and  that  this  statement  of  Robinson  and  simi 
lar  declarations  that  there  was  "no  organized  opposition,"  made  to 
Shannon  and  in  the  "treaty"  with  him,  were  the  most  gigantic  mis- 
statements,  the  facts  herein  already  given  and  those  to  follow  leave 
not  the  slightest  doubt.  However,  as  news  of  the  result  of  this  first 
open  conflict  spread  in  the  Xorth,  it  was  taken  as  a  free-State  vic 
tory  ;  and  Mr.  Rhodes  adds,  "and  the  Xorth  learned  that  there  was 
a  resolute  party  in  Kansas  determined  to  make  a  fight  for  a  free- 
State."*1  Just  six  days  before  the  Branson  rescue,  Governor  Shan 
non,  a  Federal  officer,  had  issued  an  official  proclamation  calling 
upon  all  citizens  to  aid  Sheriff  Jones  in  serving  his  writs  and  in 
otherwise  enforcing  the  laws  enacted  by  the  legislature.  The  Bran 
son  rescue  and  the  resistance  at  Lawrence  were  in  direct  disregard 
of  this  Federal  proclamation,  no  less  than  violations  of  the  local 
Territorial  laws. 


443Repts.  of  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  III.,  034-937. 

*«Ib. 

W5  Kans.  Hist.  Cols.,  246. 

4485  Kans.  Hist.  Cols.,  249. 

449The  War  in  Kan.   (1856),  60. 

"'History  U.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  106. 


214  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  herein  given,  from  two  sources  we 
have  other  evidence  of  organized  opposition  to  the  laws  and  Territo 
rial  government; — an  organized  opposition  begun  and  aided  in  the 
North  and  carried  out  in  Kansas :  (1)  In  1858,  or  '59,  an  effort  was 
made  to  induce  Kansas,  an  effort  which  was  afterward  applied  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  to>  reimburse  the  losses  sustained 
from  the  time  of  the  Branson  rescue  up  to  the  time  of  the  effort  for 
reimbursement.  Evidence  was  taken  ex  parte,  and  generally  it  is 
that  given  by  the  Northern  party.  Now  and  then  in  the  printed 
pages  we  find  a  Southern  adherent  asking  a  reimbursement  for  some 
damage,  but  such  is  rather  the  exception.  This  evidence  was  gath 
ered  by  three  commissioners  appointed  by  Kansas  for  the  purpose 
of  auditing  the  claims,  and  was  printed  with  a  Congressional  com 
mittee  report,  when  the  matter  was  before  Congress,  in  Reports  of 
Committees,  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  second  session,  volume  3.  Its 
early  date,  and  the  fact  that  we  have  the  sworn  statements  of  many 
of  the  leading  rebels,  make  it  a  source  of  valuable  evidence  cumula 
tive  to  that  already  given.  (2)  Another  valuable  source,  bearing 
upon  the  events  under  consideration,  is  the  official  reports  of  the 
United  States  Army  officers  who  served  in  various  positions  in  Kan 
sas  from  its  Territorial  creation  to  the  close  of  1860. 

From  the  evidence  in  the  claims  cases  we  have  very  positive  state 
ments  of  the  war  footing  which  began  early  in  1855  and  which  first 
came  to  open  resistance  in  the  Branson  rescue.  For  instance,  in  a 
sworn  deposition  given  May  29,  1859,  the  prominent  insurrectionary 
leader,  Jas.  H.  Lane,  says  that  from  November,  1855,  "the  condi 
tion  of  affairs  was  an  actual  state  of  war."  "Opposing  armies  were 
in  the  field  during  that  war — the  free-State  men  had  in  the  field, 
at  the  same  time,  800  or  1,000  men,  concentrated  at  Lawrence,  and 
there  fortified  with  wood  and  timber  and  earth  breastworks,  seven 
in  number.  .  .  .  The  main  army,"  he  continues,  "was  kept  in  the 
field  from  the  latter  part  of  November  till  the  middle  of  Decem 
ber,  1855,  when  the  main  body  was  disbanded,  retaining,  however, 
in  actual  service  a  sufficient  number  of  companies  to  serve  a  nucleus 
(being  regularly  drilled),  to  man  the  fortifications  and  prevent 
surprise.  These  companies  were  thus  retained  in  service  at  Law 
rence  until  April,  1856."4!  But  the  disbandment  was  by  no  means 


451Repts.  Corns.,  2  sess.,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  945. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £15 

the  conclusion.  From  the  very  first,  "foraging  parties  brought  in 
cattle"  for  the  Lawrence  "army."45  Lawrence  was  put  under  mar 
tial  law/33  and  from  November,  1855,  on,  so  Dr.  Chas.  Robinson 
states  in  one  deposition  before  the  claims  committee,  no  man  would 
have  been  permitted  to  have  removed  his  goods,  provisions,  or  sup 
plies,  "as  it  was  important  to  maintain  an  appearance  of  confidence 
and  stability/'454  These  troops  of  the  rebellion  quartered  and  fed 
upon  private  individuals  without  their  consent  and  without  paying 
for  what  was  obtained.  In  one  case  one  hundred  persons  daily  fed 
upon  one  young  woman  until  they  broke  her  health  and  ruined  her 
business.405  They  paid  her  nothing  and  fed  against  her  will.  The 
rebel  leaders,  Dr.  C.  Robinson  and  G-.  W.  Deitzler,  stated  on  oath 
that  "she  was  reduced  from  comparative  comfort  to  almost  desti 
tution."456 

Following  these  events,  January  24,  1856,  President  Pierce  offi 
cially  endorsed  the  legislature  elected  by  the  Southern  people  resi 
dent  in  Kansas,  which  historians  generally  call  the  Lecompton  leg 
islature.  Also,  he  officially  declared  the  government  which  the  in 
surgent  abolitionists  attempted  to  set  up,  revolutionary  and  an  act 
of  rebellion.457  From  this  recognition  of  the  Lecompton  Territorial 
government  by  the  chief  executive  of  the  United  States  on  to  the 
close  of  hostilities,  all  repudiation  or  armed  resistance  was  un 
doubted  rebellion, — not  alone  against  the  Territorial  laws  and  au 
thority,  but  against  the  lawful  authority  of  the  United  States. 
The  highest  authority  in  the  land  before  whom  the  question  had 
come,  Congress  and  the  President  of  the  United  States,  declared 
the  laws  of  the  recognized  Kansas  Territorial  Igislature  legal,  valid, 
binding;  and  the  official  proclamation  that  all  resistance  was  re 
bellion,  was  enforced  by  the  Secretary  of  War/58  and  that  entirely 
irrespective  of  party  or  section.459  Did  Robinson,  Abbott,  Lane, 
Reeder,  Lawrence,  and  their  many  hundreds  of  co-conspirators,  de 
sist  ?  Did  the  ^"orth  bow  loyally  to  the  United  States  Government  ? 

«2Ib.,  947. 

453Ib.,  934. 

«*Ib.,  943. 

«slb.,  342. 

456Ib.,  344. 

^Wilder's  Annals  of  Ran.,  90  ;  Kan.  Hist.  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  253,  236,  259,  260. 

45SKan.  Historical  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  260. 

«9Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  49,  50. 


2 16  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Did  she  hear  the  command  of  the  chief  of  the  armies  of  the  Union? 
Did  the  thousands  in  the  North  withdraw  their  support  and  com 
fort?  The  very  reverse  is  true;  Northen  clamor  grew  louder  and 
the  active  rebels  grew  bolder.  On  the  second  of  the  following  Feb 
ruary,  the  "New  York  Tribune  declared  that  the  duty  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  free-States  is  to  send  more  true  men,  more  Sharp's  rifles, 
more  field  pieces,  and  howitzers  to  Kansas."  Similar  sentiments 
were  echoed  all  over  the  North.400  Says  Mr.  Rhodes,  "Public  meet 
ings  in  aid  of  Kansas  were  held  all  over  the  free  States,  and  com 
mittees  to  collect  money  and  use  it  properly  were  appointed/'401 

On  the  llth  of  February  of  the  same  year  and  within  a  few  days 
of  that  time,  proclamations  were  issued  respectively  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  and  by  the  governor  of  Kansas,  both  of 
which  declared  that  the  assembling  of  the  Topeka  legislature  "would 
constitute  the  fact  of  insurrection" ;  and  those  who  claimed  to  con 
stitute  that  body  were  forbidden  "from  assembling,  organizing,  or 
attempting  to  organize,  or  act  in  any  legislative  capacity  whatso 
ever."4'  March  26th,  following,  Jefferson  Da  vis, 'Secretary  of  War, 
directed  Col.  Sumner,  commanding  United  States  troops  in  Kan 
sas,  to  repress  lawlessness  of  every  character,  and  "to  make  no  dis 
crimination,  founded  on  the  section  or  country  from  which  persons 
might  or  had  come."  This  order  was  again  emphasized  by  him  from 
the  War  Department  August  27,  1856.403 

On  April  11,  1856,  the  governor  of  the  Territory  officially  an 
nounced  that,  "The  charges  made  in  some  of  the  public  papers,  and 
in  other  quarters,  that  there  exists  an  armed  organization  in  Mis 
souri  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  aggressive  movement  into  this 
Territory,  never  had  any  foundation  in  truth  to  rest  upon."4e  As 
in  the  past,  so  from  now  on  as  the  movements  of  all  parties  are 
given  us  by  the  army  officers  through  their  various  official  reports 
and  correspondence,  the  truth  of  this  statement  of  the  governor  will 
be  evident  because  (1)  no  important  party  or  number  of  Mis 
souri  ans  were  ever  axmed  for  aggression;  (2)  except  the  fewest 
cases  of  wholly  irresponsible  and  small  parties,  to  be  noticed  later, 


^Rhodes.  History  TJ.  S.,  Vol.  II..  152. 

*81Ib.,  153. 

*C2Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  5,  p.  58. 

463Ib.,  60. 

*MSen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  II.,  p.   67. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  217 

those  who  came  from  Missouri  or  other  Southern  localities,  always 
retired  quietly  and  without  molesting  others,  when  they  understood 
that  the  laws  would  be  respected,  or  their  friends  and  relatives  left 
unharmed;  (3)  they  made  no  organized  movement  except  such  as 
conformed  to  the  orders  of  lawful  Territorial  officers. 

In  the  absence  of  the  governor,  the  secretary,  Daniel  Woodson, 
wTas  the  acting,  governor.  In.  an  official  communication  to  him,  Col. 
E.  Y.  Sumner,  commanding  the  first  United  States  cavalry,  June 
28,  1856,  said,  "I  have  sent  Major  Sedgwick  with  two  companies  to 
Topeka  to  prevent  the  assembling  of  the  so-called  Topeka  legisla 
ture.  I  am  decidedly  of  opinion  that  that  body  of  men  ought  not 
to  be  permitted  to  assemble.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the 
peace  of  the  country  depends  upon  it.  In  this  affair  it  is  proper 
that  the  civil  authorities  should  take  the  lead,  and  I  would  respect 
fully  suggest  whether  it  would  not  be  better  (if  you  find  they  are 
bent  on  meeting)  to  have  a  justice  of  the  peace  and  a  marshal  in 
person  join  Major  Sedgwick,  and  have  writs  drawn  and  served  on 
them  the  moment  they  get  together.  ...  If  you  think  there  is  a 
possibility  of  having  any  difficulty  in  carrying  out  this  measure,  I 
will  thank  you  to  apprise  me  of  it  in  time  for  me  to  get  there:  for 
it  is  right  that  I  should  take  all  responsibility  whenever  we  have  to 
use  force."465  On  the  30th  of  June  the  officers  commanding  United 
States  forces  reported  Lane  "with  a  very  large  force"  of  Northern 
men  moving  to  Topeka  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  protecting  their 
legislature.4"  On  the  3d  of  July  Gen.  Smith  reported  that,  "The 
persons  chosen  under  the  new  constitution  as  members  of  the  legis 
lature  of  the  'State  of  Kansas,'  were  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  4th 
of  July."467  This  meeting  of  itself,  under  both  the  President's  and 
the  governor's  proclamation,  was  rebellion — and  rebellion  supported 
and  protected  by  armed  force. 

Pursuant  to  adjournment,  on  the  morning  of  July  4th  the  mem 
bers  of  the  seditious  "Kansas  State"  legislature  gathered  at  To 
peka,  Col.  E.  V.  Sumner  had  a  United  States  marshal  read  in  the 
hearing  of  all  the  people  the  proclamations  of  the  President  and  of 
the  governor,  both  of  which  forebade  the  assembling  or  the  attempt 
to  assemble  of  the  Topeka  legislature,  and  declared  that  any  one  of 


455Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  53-4. 
48(5Ib.,  55. 
487Ib.,  56. 


SOUTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

such  act  would  constitute  sedition  and  rebellion.     In  his  report  to 
Col.  S.  Cooper,  adj.-gen.  TJ.  S.  A.,  Col.  Sunnier  says,  "A  part  of 
the  members  complied  with  them,  and  did  not  assemble;  but  a  num 
ber  of  both  houses  determined  to  meet  at  all  hazards,  and  I  was 
obliged  to  march  my  command  into  the  town  and  draw  up  in  front 
of  the  building  in  which  the  legislature  was  to  meet/'408    He  then 
went  in  and  dispersed  both  branches.    In  another  report  Col.  Sum- 
nor  also  'said,  "The  free-State  legislature  of  Kansas,  elected  and  or 
ganized  without  law,  was  considered  by  the  governor  and  myself  as 
'insurrectionary/  and  under  the  President's  proclamation  of  Feb 
ruary  last,  we  felt  bound  to  suppress  it.    If  it  had  been  suffered  to 
go  on  it  must  have  led  to  the  most  serious  consequences.     Even  if 
they  had  not  attempted  to  put  their  laws  in  force,  the  very  enact 
ment  of  them,  together  with  the  other  proceedings  of  an  organized 
legislature,  would  have  encouraged  the  free-State  party  in  still  more 
decided  resistance  to  the  laws  which  the  President  had  decided  must 
be  maintained.    Under  the  circumstances  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to 
maintain  the  proclamation  of  acting  Governor  Woodson.    The  mar 
shal  was  sent  into  Topeka  to  read  this  proclamation,  and  also  the 
President's,  and  I  had  previously  informed  the  people  that  I  was 
very  anxious  that  they  should  comply  with  them  and  not  compel  me 
to  display  force  on  the  occasion.    When  the  marshal  returned  to  my 
camp  he  reported  to  me  that  the  legislature  would  assemble  in  de 
fiance  of  the  proclamations.    I  knew  that  there  was  a  large  body  of 
men  there  to  sustain  this  act." 

Gen.  P.  F.  Smith  succeeded  Col.  Sumner  to  the  command  of  the 
United  States  Army,  department  of  the  West.  On  July  14th  in  an 
official  communication  he  said  that  the  funds  furnished  "from  with 
out"  kept  lawless  bands  spread  over  the  "country  robbing,  and  even 
murdering."4'  He  continues,  "On  the  28th  of  June,  at  Iowa  City. 
Col.  Lane  raised  $2,000  by  subscription,  and  had  about  two  hun 
dred  and  fifty  men,  whom  he  said  would  march,  with  a  large  rein 
forcement  from  Chicago,  across  Iowa  to  Council  Bluffs."470  Shortly 
afterward  Lane  and  his  reinforcements  arrived  and  began  to  resist 
legal  officers  and  to  pillage  and  to  murder. 

Northern  papers  kept  busy  declaring  that  the  free-State  people 


48SSen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  57. 

46ftlb.,  65. 

470Ib.,  58,  et  sea. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  219 

in  Kansas  had  petitioned  the  officers  commanding  United  States 
troops  for  protection.  In  an  official  communication  Gen.  Smith  re 
ferred  to  these  reports  and  denounced  them  as  "gross  fabrications," 
and  said  "there  is  no  foundation  for  any  of  them/'471 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  General  Smith  was  born  in  Pennsyl 
vania.  He  was  distinguished,  in  the  words  of  General  Winfield 
Scott,  in  our  war  with  Mexico  as  a  brave,  able,  "cool,  unembar 
rassed,  and  ready55  soldier.  He  died  in  Kansas  in  1858. 

I  can  pause  to  notice  but  a  few  of  the  open  acts  of  violence  per 
petrated,  as  shown  by  these  army  official  reports,  by  the  organized 
rebels.  Several  times  previous  to  the  middle  of  August,  1856,  they 
had  attacked  and  fought  the  United  States  troops  while  in  the  dis 
charge  of  Federal  duty.472  Those  who  so  desire  may  consult  the 
original  records  for  the  numerous  details.  I  mention  a  few  more  of 
the  more  noted  of  their  deeds  of  bloody  violence.  On  August  17th 
Major  Seclgwick  reported  800  armed  rebels  in  Lawrence.473  He  re 
ports  that  the  free-State  rebels,  near  the  same  date,  attacked  the 
town  of  Lecompton.  With  a  six-pounder  they  destroyed  the  home 
of  Col.  Titus,  killed  one  man,  wounded  Titus,  and  secured  him  and 
other -prisoners. 

This  is  the  same  Major  Sedgwick,  who  became  the  Union  general 
of  Gettysburg  fame,  and  who  lost  his  life  at  Spottsylvania  C.  H., 
May  9,  1864.  He  was  a  native  of  Connecticut. 

Xor  were  their  depredations  confined  to  killing  and  robbing  only 
Southern  men  and  such  as  sympathized  with  the  Southern  position. 
Many  of  their  own  party  were  forced  to  support  the  army.  Con 
gress  was  afterward  asked,  as  I  stated  above,  to  pay  for  the  dam 
ages  committed  by  the  various  companies  and  bands  who  scattered 
desolation  and  ruin  in  the  name  of  a  "free- State  where  w^hite  men 
only  may  not  come  in  competition  with  the  negro,  free  or  slave," 
in  almost  every  settlement  of  the  Territory.  Turning  again  to  the 
volume  containing  the  evidence  gathered  by  the  committee  who  were 
assigned  to  audit  these  claims,  we  find  a  free-State  man  swears  "that 
about  the  last  of  August,  1856,  a  company  of  ragamuffins,  under 
the  command  of  General  Lane,"  destroyed  his  corn,  burned  his 


«71Ib.,  67. 
472Ib.,  44. 
«3Ib.,  72. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

house,  and  drove  a  peaceable  pro-slavery  neighbor  from  home/74  An 
other  witness  swore  that  in  this  same  month  this  same  Jas.  H.  Lane 
and  liis  men  "armed  with  Sharp's  rifles,  Colt's  pistols,  bowie-knives, 
and  other  deadly  weapons/'  committed  bold  robbery.475  (If  the 
reader  will  turn  back  to  the  description  given  by  a  Northern  writer, 
and  quoted  above,  which  he  meant  to  apply  to  a  "Missouri  ruffian," 
he  will  surely  agree  with  me  that  that  writer  mistook  one  of  his  own 
countrymen  armed  by  prominent  Northern  ministers  of  the  Gospel 
and  other  substantial  citizens,  as  that  "soldier"  moved  out  to  mur 
der  and  wanton  rapine  in  the  name  of  the  "free-State  of  Kansas.") 

On  August  29th,  Gen.  P.  F.  Smith,  reporting  to  the  adjutant- 
general  of  the  U.  S.  A.,  after  speaking  of  the  recruits  brought  in 
by  Lane,  and  of  the  numerous  reports  that  these  men  under  Lane's 
leadership  were  "engaged  in  robbing,  murdering,  and  driving  out 
of  the  Territory  all  those  who  were  of  a  different  opinion  from  them 
selves,"  adds  that  expeditions,  inspired  by  these  reports  and  rumors, 
seem  to  be  preparing  on  all  hands  to  enter  the  Territory  and  avenge 
the  wrongs  inflicted  on  Southerners  and  their  friends.  "Exag 
gerated  and  false  as  many  of  these  rumors  have  been,"  he  continues, 
"there  is  'some  truth  in  the  foundation  of  them.  A  large  number  of 
men  brought  by  Lane  from  the  East  have  entered  Kansas  in  small 
parties,  and  with  their  arms  concealed.  They  arrived  mostly  at 
Lawrence,  where  they  completed  their  organization.  They  robbed 
all  the  country  within  their  reach  of  the  horses,  and  finally  attacked 
the  house  of  the  postmaster  at  Franklin,  probably  with  a  view  of 
getting  possession  of  some  arms  issued  to  the  militia,  and  deposited 
there.  They  wounded  some  and  made  prisoners  of  others  defending 
the  house,  and  set  fire  to  it,  having  robbed  the  postoffice."  After  de 
tailing  other  depredations,  he  adds,  "I  do  not  think  it  was  proper 
to  prevent  citizens  from  the  neighboring  border  of  Missouri  coming 
over  to  aid  and  protect  their  relatives  and  friends  from  the  outrages 
offered  by  the*  parties  from  Lawrence  and  Topeka."476 

Sept.  23d,  General  Smith's  report  was  considered  at  the  War 
Department  by  Secretary  Jefferson  Davis,  who  endorsed :  "The  only 
distinction  of  parties  which,  in  a  military  point  of  view,  it  is  neces- 

474Repts.  Corns.,  2  sess.,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  pt.  1,  919,  923,  924. 

475Ib.,   775. 

476Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess,  34  Cong.,  No.  5,  p.  78. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £21 

sary  to  note,  is  that  which  distinguishes  those  who  respect  and  main 
tain  the  laws  and  organized  government  from  those  who  combine 
for  revolutionary  resistance  to  the  constituted  authorities  and  laws 
of  the  land.  The  armed  combination  of  the  latter  class  come  within 
the  denunciation  of  the  President's  proclamation,  and  are  proper 
subjects  upon  which  to  employ  military  force."477 

In  the  latter  part  of  August,  John  W.  Geary  succeeded  to  the 
Governorship  of  Kansas  Territory.  Sept,  11,  1856,  he  disbanded 
the  militia,478  amd  delivered  a  strong  address  to  the  people.470  Re 
porting  to  the  adjutant-general,  Col.  S.  Cooper,  General  Persifor 
F.  Smith  said,  "The  good  sense  and  respect  for  law  which  has  been 
evinced  by  companies  from  Missouri  has  made  the  prompt  and  ener 
getic  action  of  Governor  Geary  entirely  successful,  and  the  road  is 
now  clear  for  our  operations  (already  begun),  without  waiting  for 
or  requiring  the  presence  of  other  troops." 

But  these  sanguine  views  were  not  speedily  to  be  fulfilled.  On 
Sept.  15,  1856,  so  sickening  had  become  the  outrages  committed  by 
companies  fitted  out  from  Lawrence,  that  General  Atchinson,  ex- 
vice-President  of  the  United  States,  and  General  Eeed,  organized 
a  large  force  in  Missouri,  crossed  the  border,  gathered  what  Kansas 
militia  they  could,  and  moved  to  attack  and  destroy  Lawrence. 
They  came  "with  banners  flying,"  "uniformed  and  well  armed," 
twenty-five  hundred  men,  horse  and  foot,  and  had  "a  strong  sLv 
pound  battery."  Governor  Geary  and  Lieut.-Col.  Cooke,  the  latter 
in  command  of  United  States  troops  watching  the  Lawrence  insur 
rectionists  as  well  as  the  movements  of  all  parties,  went  out  to  meet 
this  coming  army.  They  demanded  that  the  Missourians  retire  and 
that  all  go  home.  Speeches  by  both  sides  were  made,  and  Col.  Cooke 
and  the  governor  assured  all  parties  that  they  would  enforce  law 
and  stop  outrages.  In  his  report  the  colonel  says,  "Authority  pre 
vailed,  and  the  militia  honorably  submitted  to  march  off  to  be  dis 
banded  at  their  place  of  rendezvous.-"  And  that  Missourians  and 
all  did  return  home  is  shown  by  what  he  says  later  in  the  same  re 
port:  "Lieut-Col.  Johnston  returned  at  4  P.  M.,  and  reports  that 
the  main  body  of  the  militia,  or  Missourians,  having  passed  the 

4"Ib.,  83. 
478Ib.,  119. 
479Ib.,  116. 


222  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Wakarusa  six  miles  beyond  Lawrence  yesterday  evening,,  were  no 
where  to  be  seen  by  the  patrols  this  morning  at  that  or  another 
point  above."4' 

This  report  was  made  to  Major  F.  J.  Porter,  under  whose  super 
vision  all  these  movements  at  that  time  came.  Major  Porter  was  a 
native  of  New  Hampshire,  He  was  the  son  of  Capt.  John  Porter, 
of  the  U.  S.  N".,  and  nephew  of  Commodore  David  Porter,  who  com 
manded  the  famous  frigate*  Essex  in  1812-'14.  He  was  distin 
guished  in  the  war  with  Mexico,  and  was  for  two  years  on  duty  at 
West  Point  Military  Academy.  In  the  Union  Army  of  the  Civil 
War  he  attained  the  rank  of  brigadier-general.  Except  some  trou 
bles  between  himself  and  General  Pope,  his  record  was  that  of  "a 
thoroughly  capable,  judicious,  and  brave  soldier";481  while  at  no 
time  was  his  loyalty  to  the  Union  cause  ever  questioned.  As  late  as 
188G  he  held  civil  office  in  New  York  City. 

Capt.  Thos.  J.  Wood,  afterwards  brigadier-general,  who  'served 
with  distinction  in  the  Union  army  throughout  the  Civil  War,  and 
who  was  regularly  retired  with  the  rank  of  brigadier  in  1871,  in 
an  official  report  from  his  camp  near  Lecompton,  Sept.  16,  1856, 
says: 

"...  I  learned  at  the  ferry  at  Lecompton  that  a  large  band  of 
marauders,  commanded  by  a  person  named  Harvey,  and  who  is  re 
ported  to  hold  the  rank  of  colonel  among  the  organized  disturbers 
of  the  peace  of  the  Territory,  had  marched  from  Lawrence  the  pre 
vious  night  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  some  settlement  or  settle 
ments  in  the  district  in  which  I  had  been  ordered  to  afford  protec 
tion.  .  .  .  About  an  hour  later  the  messenger  who  had  been  sent  to 
Hickory  Point  returned,  and  reported  that  Harvey's  party  had  at 
tacked  Hickory  Point  at  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  and  were  prob 
ably  still  somewhere  in  that  vicinity,  as  the  attack,  from  all  the  in 
formation  he  had  obtained,  had  been  made  by  a  force  of  some  three 
hundred  and  fifty  men,  provided  with  artillery  and  baggage  wagons. 
At  9  I  moved  toward  Hickory  Point,  marching  very  rapidly.  About 
11%  o'clock  I  met  an  armed  party,  numbering  'about  twenty-five 
men,  on  the  road  leading  from  Hickory  Point  to  Lawrence.  I 
halted  them,  anil  asked  who  they  were,  whither  they  had  been,  and 


«°Ib.,  122. 

<81The  Nat.  Cy.  Am.  Biog. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  223 

whither  they  were  going.  To  these  questions  they  replied  that  they 
were  'a  part  of  Colonel  Harvey's  command;  that  they  were  return 
ing  to  Lawrence  from  Hickory  Point,  and  they  had  been  engaged  in 
the  attack  that  day  on  the  latter  place/  They  were  well  armed  with 
muskets  and  Sharp's  carbines,  and  had  with  them  three  wagons,  in 
one  of  which  there  was  a  man  who  had  been  wounded  in  the  attack. 
The  deputy  marshal  arrested  them  in  the  name  of  the  United 
States,  and  required  them  to  lay  down  their  arms,  which  require 
ment  I  enforced."  He  then  moved  on  and  surprised  Harvey's  camp 
"before  there  was  time  to  make  any  preparations  for  resistance  or 
escape."  He  continues :  "I  immediately  rode  into  the  camp  accom 
panied  by  the  marshal.  The  men  in  camp  acknowledge  themselves 
to  belong  to  Harvey's  party,  and  that  they  had  been  engaged  in  the 
attack  on  Hickory  Point,  which  fact  was  well  attested  by  the  pres 
ence  of  several  wounded  men  in  the  camp;  and  furthermore,  they 
acknowledged  that  they  had  marched  from  Lawrence  the  previous 
night  to  make  the  attack.  The  marshal  arrested  all  of  them  in  the 
name  of  the  United  States,  and  required  them  to  lay  down  their 
arms,  which  I  enforced.  They  laid  down  their  arms  with  consider 
able  hesitation,  and  would  perhaps  not  have  done  so  at  all,  but  that 
they  found  themselves  entirely  surrounded  by  a  force  sufficient  to 
enforce  the  marshal's  orders.  .  .  .  The  marauders  were  well  armed 
with  muskets,  and  Sharp's  carbines,  hunting  rifles,  revolving  pis 
tols,  bowie-knives,  etc.,  and  had  one  piece  of  artillery,  a  four- 
pounder."  Capt.  Wood  captured  101  men,  and  learned  that  those 
actually  engaged  in  the  attack  had  numbered  about  200  men,  of 
whom  about  150,  from  the  best  information  that  this  officer  could 
get,  were  from  Topeka.482  He  secured  "47  Sharp's  carbines,  38  mus 
kets,  6  hunting  rifles,  2  shotguns,  20  revolving  pistols,  14  bowie- 
knives,  4  swords,  and  one  piece  of  artillery,  with  a  large  supply  of 
ammunition  for  all  arms,"  and  adds:  "Doubtless  many  arms  were 
thrown  a,way  by  the  marauders,  as  some  of  those  brought  in  were 
picked  up  in  the  grass  by  my  men."*8 

So  determined  were  the  anti-Southern  party  of  the  North  to  force 
upon  the  country  a  war,  that  it  was  only  by  the  utmost  vigilance 
that  the  regular  army  thwarted  the  design.  Typical  of  the  methods 


*82Ib.,  125. 

*83Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.,  34  Cong.,  No.  5,  126. 


224:  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  suppression  are  such  as  the  following:  To  Col.  Cooke  Gen.  F. 
J.  Porter,  assistant  adj.-gen.,  on  Oct.  5,  1856,  sent  an  order  in  which 
he  directs  a  careful  inspection  of  all  emigrants,  and  orders  "by  a 
careful  examination  to  insure  yourself  that  they  form  no  part  of 
organized  armed  bodies  or  Lane's  men.  Should  they  enter  the  Ter 
ritory  with  cannon,  or  form  any  portion  of  Lane's  command,  you 
will  not  believe  their  professions,,  but  take  them  prisoners  and  dis 
arm  them."484 

That  these  precautions  were  well  taken,  a  glance  back  at  the  re 
port  of  Col.  Cooke  to  Maj.  Porter  of  Sept.  20,  1856,  will  more  than 
assure  us.  He  says,  "Lane  attacked  the  assembled  neighbors  of 
loth  parties — assembled  for  protection  at  Hickory  Point — on  Sat 
urday,  demanding  their  surrender  on  pain  of  no  quarter  being 
shown  to  them.  His  proceedings  were  cowardly,  and  he  sent  to 
Lawrence  for  reinforcements;  and  on  Sunday,  he  probably  being 
gone,  one  hundred  and  fifty  men  from  Lawrence,  with  a  four- 
pounder,  fired  on  some  fifty  men  and  some  women  five  hours.  A 
dozen  or  more  cannon  balls  struck  the  log  houses.  They  killed  one 
man,  and  are  all  guilty  of  murder."483 

Turn  once  more  to  the  civil  side  of  this  rebellion.  Organization 
much  more  complete  than  that  of  numerous  revolution's  which  in 
the  end  have  succeeded,  marked  the  thoroughness  of  the  early  plans. 
Dr.  Chas.  Eobinson,  Jas.  H.  Lane,  G.  W.  Deitzler,  and  Going  Jen 
kins  were  constituted  a  semi-legislative  and  executive  body  in  whose 
hand's  the  rebels  lodged  the  sovereignty  of  the  "State  of  Kansas," 
until  such  time  as  the  several  regular  departments  of  government 
could  assume  the  duties  of  their  several  functions.  Among  the  early 
act?  of  this  body,  involving  an  exercise  of  their  assumed  sovereignty, 
was  the  issuing  of  script.  This  was  a  kind  of  circulating  medium 
-differing  in  no  essentials,  other  than  that  this  purported  to  be  on.  the 
authority  of  a  "State,"  from  the  early  issues  of  bills  by  the  Confed 
erate  States.  Among  the  claims  affidavits  we  find  their  own  sworn 
statements  that  this  "war  'script"  was  received  at  par  for  all  pur 
poses  "the  same  as  though  it  were  cash  and  no  discrimination  was 
made  on  the  sale  of  goods  for  script  or  cash."488  This  bold  assumption 


484Ib.,  131. 
<85Ib.,  134. 
488Repts.  Come.,  2d  sess  ,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  937. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £25 

of  sovereign  power  was  further  manifested  by  requiring  the  citizens 
to  receive  this  script.487  Many  took  it  cheerfully  to  "sustain  the  droop 
ing  spirits  of  the  settlers  by  a  manifestation  of  confidence  in  the 
movement  which  none  could  dispute  o*r  doubt/'  said  one  free-State 
witness  under  oath.488  This  governmental  committee  and  others,  so 
we  are  told  by  their  own  side  under  oath,  gave  "assurance  on  be 
half  of  the  free-State  men  of  the  Territory  at  large,  that  all  script 

VERBATIM  WORDING  OF  KANSAS  STATE  REBEL  SCRIPT.* 


Wood  cut:  woman  holding  scales, 
supposed  to  be  blind  to  her  own 
interests. 


No.  62.  TOPEKA,  November  26,  1855.  $20. 

This  is  to  certify  that  Cyrus  K.  Holiday,  or  bearer,  is  entitled,  b 

on  presentation,  to  receive  from  the  Treasurer  of  the 

STATE  OF  KANSAS 

Twenty  dollars,  with  interest  at  ten  per  cent,  per  annum,  for 
account  as  per  bill  on  file,  for  the  payment  of  which  the  faith 


of  the  State  is  pledged. 
Attest — 

J.  K.  GOODWIX,  Sec'y. 

J.  H.  LANE,  Ch'n  Ex.  Com. 

[The  Kansas  Freeman  Print,  Topeka,  Kan.] 


VERBATIM  WORDING  OF  CONFEDERATE  STATES  SCRIPT. 

Two  years  after  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  of 
No.  peace  between  the  Confederate  States  and  the  U.  S.       11094. 


Cut  of  building   once  used  for 
Conf.  legis. 


THE  CONFEDERATE  STATES  OF  AMERICA  will  pay 
to  bearer  FIVE  DOLLARS. 
^     G  Richmond,  February  17,  1864. 


W.  BOYD,  |    Head    | 

A.  DOAX,  For  Treasurer.     |  cut  of  | 

For  Register.  man.    I 


*87Ib.T  938. 
^Ib. 

*Brewerton,  The  Kansas  War  (N.  Y.,  '56),  p.  342. 
15 


226  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

should  and  would  be  redeemed  by  the  committee,  dollar  for  dollar, 
by  the  voluntary  donations,  subscriptions,  and  funds  which,  from 
the  circumstances  and  nature  of  the  impending  struggle,  and  the 
interest  manifested  throughout  the  Northern.  States,  they  then  felt 
assured  would  speedily  come  into  their  hands  for  the  purpose  of  sus 
taining  the  object  that  the  Lawrence  people  and  their  sympathizers 
and  friends  throughout  the  Territory  were  contending  for."4'  Here 
again  is  evidence,  and  that  nearly  contemporary  with  the  events 
themselves,  that  this  rebellion  got  its  strength  from  the  North.  In 
November,  1855,  "the  free-State  Executive  Committee"  issued  $15,- 
265.90  of  this  circulating  medium,  says  Wilder.  He  furthermore 
says,  "The  first  Topeka  Legislature,  as  required  by  the  constitution, 
made  provision  for  its  redemption."45 

Various  other  instances  of  assumed  civil  authority  arc  on  record. 
One  mentioned  by  Governor  E.  J.  Walker  in  an  official  communica 
tion  on  Sept.  26,  1857,  to  Brevet-Brig.  Gen.  Wm.  S.  Homey,  is 
perhaps  most  important.  Said  Governor  Walker,  "The  insurgent 
government  .  .  .,  under  the  erroneous  opinion  that  the  troops  had 
all  been  ordered  to  Utah,  and  would  not  be  replaced  by  others,  have 
passed  a  compulsory  tax  law,  authorizing  the  seizure  and  sale  of 
property,  and  exacting  from  their  executive  officers  the  enforcement 
of  this  ordinance  under  the  'solemnity  of  an  oath.  "He  directed 
Gen.  Homey  to  order  troops  to  the  vicinity  of  Lawrence  to  suppress 
this  flagrant  illegality.*91 

These  various  assumptions  of  authority  and  efforts  to  exercise  the 
functions  of  government,  were,  many  of  them,  after  the  President's 
proclamation,  and  some  of  the  boldest  efforts  at  putting  their  gov 
ernmental  machinery  in  motion  were  persistently  pursued  for  many 
months  and  in  some  instances  for  years  thereafter  and  in  knowing 
disobedience  thereof.  There  was  a  reciprocal  support,  during  all 
this  time,  between  the  civil  authority  and  the  armed  soldiery.  For 
instance,  during  1856  all  the  stores  in  Lawrence  were  forcibly  im 
poverished  by  armed  free-State  "soldiers"  who  paid  nothing,  but 
left  the  items  "to  be  charged  to  the  committee  of  safety  and  by 
them  paid  for  as  part  of  the  expenses  of  the  war."45  In  August  of 


<8fllb.,  038. 

«*>Annals  of  Kans.    (1886),  87. 

«91Exec.  Docs.,  1  sess.,  35  Cong.,  Vol.  II.,  pt.  2.  No.  2,  p.  121. 

*92Repts.  Corns.,  2d  sess.,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  937. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  227 

that  year,  the  entire  town  of  Lawrence,  with  several  hundred  sol 
diers  to  support,  could  show  but  "fourteen  sacks  of  flour,  no  meal, 
beef,  or  bacon  of  consequence/'41  This  "military  organization,  with 
patrols  and  sentinels  at  night,  was  kept  up  in  Lawrence  during  De 
cember  (1856)  and  January  and  February  (1857)"  to  the  number 
of  five  or  six  hundred.41'4  Even  then,  as  we  shall  see,  the  end  was  not 
yet.  The  demand  for  food  necessitated  extensive  stealing;4"5  men 
with  wives  sick  in  bed*  were  driven  from  home,  and  nothing  of  any 
value,  from  the  "fat  ox"41*5  to  almanacs,497  escaped  the  destruction 
which  followed  the  bloody  tracks  of  this  rebellion,  as  numerous 
sworn  witnesses  tell  us  in  corroboration  of  the  army  officers  of  the 
United  States,  generally  Northern  men  who  followed  the  Union 
cause  through  the  Civil  War, — the  deposing  witnesses  being  gen 
erally  Northern  men  and  for  the  most  part,  in  one  capacity  or  an 
other,  engaged  with  the  free-State  pa.rty. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  fail  to  state  that  through  the  various  claims 
depositions  we  now  and  then  find  a  claim  for  damages  on  account 
of  depredations  committed  by  men  from  Missouri  whom  the  wit 
nesses  describe  as  "drunken,  marauding  brutes  in  the  shape  and 
form  of  men,"4G8  "armed  bands  of  marauding  wretches,"499  etc.  But 
the  evidence  touching  depredations  by  Missourians  or  other  South 
ern  men  discloses  several  facts:  (1)  Much  of  it  is  entirely  guess 
work,  such  as  the  evidence  of  Michael  Glen,  who  says,  "It  was  de 
stroyed  by  Missourians,  as  I  suppose";500  or  that  of  one  Michael 
Przybytowicz,,  whose  stuff  was  burned  in  a  barn  adjoining  a  house 
which  he  declared  he  believed  was  fired  by  political  enemies;501  or 
that  of  the  witness  who  said  they  were  "making  pretty  free,  I  guess, 
with  property  that  they  wanted";502  (2)  there  is  no  proof  of  or 
ganized  invasions.  I  have  given  the  official  evidence,  showiilg  that 
such  parties  as  entered  the  Territory  from  Missouri  or  the  South 


493Ib.,  942. 

494Ib.,  940-3. 

495Ib.,  137,  138,  203.  919.  415,  1153,  1317,  1319,  1189. 

*Ib.,  298. 

496Ib.,  2f>l. 

497Ib.,  419. 

498  Ib.,   1007. 

499Ib..  375,  447.  148. 

BOOReps.  Corns.,  3d  sess..  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  487. 

M1Ib.,  580 

802 1 b.,  545 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

were  the  result  of  spasmodic  efforts  to  counteract  Northern  move 
ments;  (3)  even  these  counteracting  movements  ceased  voluntarily 
nearly  two  years  before  the  Northern  party  was  suppressed  at  the 
point  of  Federal  bayonets;  (4)  comparatively  the  damage  wrought 
by  Southern  invasions,  if  that  word  is  preferred,  was  most  insigni 
ficant. 

One  of  the  most  noted  and  extensive  of  the  depredating  excur 
sions  from  Missouri,  as  well  as  one  which  is  representative,  is  that 
made  in  the  fall  of  1856  by  G.  W.  Clark,  with  a  band  of  about  one 
dozen  Missourians.  "He  threw  down  fences,  destroyed  crops, 
seized  horses  and  cattle,  burnt  a  few  cabins,  and  occasionally  drove 
an  obnoxious  settler  out  of  the  country,"  is  the  most  serious  indict 
ment  which  Mr.  Spring  in  his  History  of  Kansas  (p.  239)  can  bring 
against  Clark.  No  one  charges  him  with  having  killed  any  one; 
and  whatever  he  may  have  done,  there  is  one  thing  sure,  he  was  en 
tirely  unsupported  by  the  South  or  the  Southern  emigrants  in  Kan 
sas  or  Missouri.  His  depredations  and  those  of  his  men  were  en 
tirely  the  work  of  a  band  of  private  outlaws.  His  raid  in  the  fall 
of  1856,  of  which  Spring  speaks,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  the 
last  of  the  so-called  "raids  by  Missouri  ruffians."  "Clark's  raid  was 
the  last  considerable  dash  from  Missouri  into  the  Territory"  until 
the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.503  Of  course,  no  one  charges  that 
there  was  ever  a  raid  or  "dash"  from  any  other  Southern  quarter. 
But  after  Clark's  raid  the  insurgents  carried  on  the  resistance  to 
the  authority  of  both  the  Territorial  government  and  that  of  the 
United  States,  and  also  their  excursions  for  pillage  and  marauding 
for  three  years.  Mr.  Spring  admits  that  the  Northern  outlaws, 
armed  as  we  have  seen  with  Northern  guns,  "established  a  free- 
booting  reputation  that  fairly  intimidated  pro-slavery  adherents. 
The  accounts  of  marauding  incursions  from  Missouri,  which  ap 
peared  in  contemporary  prints,  were  mostly  canards  circulated  by 
jayhawkers  [assassins]  as  an  excuse  for  their  own  depredation?,""0 
declares  Prof.  Spring. 

From  the  opening  of  hostilities  at  Lawrence,  then,  in  1855,  the 
impetus  which  the  North  had  given  the  insurrection  sent  murderous 
bands  of  free-State  men  up  and  down  in  the  land  until  the  spring 


503Ib.,  241. 
»°<Ib.,   241-2. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  229 

of  1858.  Well-planned  evasions  of  and  resistance  to  the  civil  laws 
enacted  by  the  Southern  legislature  at  Lecompton,  which  body  had 
been  confirmed  by  the  President  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  had  a  pretty  clear  field.  Missouri  was  plundered,  her  homes 
robbed,  men  were  taken  to  ignominious  imprisonment,  horses,  and 
money  were  stolen,  and  death  dealt  out  with  lavish  hand.  Clark's 
raid  was  made  a  pretext  for  gratifying  many  personal  and  political 
enmities.  The  notorious  Northern  insurrectionist,  Montgomery, 
caught,  robbed,  and  plundered  the  homes  of  twenty  Missourians  on 
one  of  his  raids.  He  accused  these  men  of  being  in  Clark's  retalia 
tory  excursion,  but  the  truth  was  that  no  more,  if  so  many,  than  one 
dozen  were  in  Clark's  party.605  Eapidly  the  situation  grew  more 
desperate,  until  its  distress  led  to  what  is  known  as  the  Marais  des 
Cygnes  massacre.  This  occurred  near  Trading  Post  about  May  19, 
1858.  It  was  led  by  Capt.  Chas.  A.  Hamilton,  formerly  of  Georgia, 
and  said  to  be  of  an  excellent  and  wealthy  family.  He  was  accom 
panied  by  a  number  of  Missourians  whose  friends  had  either  been 
robbed  or  killed  by  Montgomery,  or  some  other  marauding  aboli 
tion  band.  Hamilton  captured  eleven  men,  five  of  whom  he  killed, 
and  the  others  he  seriously  wounded.  It  seems  that  Hamilton  was 
rather  after  personal  enemies  than  those  of  a  different  political  faith. 
However,  as  in  the  case  of  Clark,  it  was  an  affair  with  which  the 
Southern  cause  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do.  Neither  he  nor  his  men 
were  armed  by  the  pro-slavery  party;  and  they  were  incited  to  the 
deeds  by  nothing  other  than  a  thirst  for  personal  vengeance.  It  was 
an  inexcusable  homicide.  I  make  no  attempt  to  palliate  the  crime, 
though  its  justification  might  have  been  found  in  the  unmitigated 
guerrilla  war  which  the  insubordination  of  the  anti-sla.very  people 
had  brought  upon  the  country.  It  was  in  retaliation  for  numerous 
raids  into  Missouri.  To  us  it  is  of  most  importance  because  it  was 
the  close  of  any  aggressive  move  which  might  be  ascribed  to  the 
Southern  people  in  Missouri.  On  the  other  hand,  the  armed  forces 
of  the  free-State  rebels  were  in  open  insurrection  from  the  first  re 
pulse  of  the  Territorial  and  Federal  authorities  at  Lawrence  in  De 
cember,  1855,  up  to  their  subjugation  by  the  strong  arm  of  the  Fed 
eral  authority,  which  was  more  than  four  years  after  the  fruition  of 
Xo*thern  grown  rebellion  on  Kansas  plains. 

505Spring,   History  Kansas.  241. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Not  alone  was  Kansas  agitated  and  murdered ;  the  entire  country 
caught  fire.  Congress  began  to  be  disturbed.  Bill  after  bill,  meas 
ure  after  measure  were  proposed.  Some  proposed  to  send  Lieut- 
Gen.  Scott  with  a  large  army  to  establish  peace.  "Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  submitted  a  plan  of  adjustment,  the  terms  of  which  were 
fair  and  unpartizan."  But  through  the  opposition  of  anti-slavery 
Northern  men  the  bill  was  lost  in  the  House.500  Congress  could 
agree  upon  but  one  measure, — the  appointment  of  a  committee  of 
investigation  by  the  House  of  Representatives.  Pursuant  to  this 
agreement,  Hons.  W.  A.  Howard,  of  Michigan ;  Mordecai  Oliver,  of 
Missouri,  and  John  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  were  appointed  and  ordered 
to  make  an  investigation.  They  began  work  April  14,  1856,  at  Kan 
sas  City,  Missouri.  They  examined  hundreds  of  witnesses,  Mr. 
Spring  says  three  hundred  and  twenty-three,  and  in  July  following 
rendered  to  the  House  the  two  reports  accompanied  by  the  evidence, 
to  all  of  which  I  have  so  frequently  referred  in  this  discussion,  and 
which  I  examined  as  fully  as  space  and  purpose  would  allow.  How 
ever,  in  Kansas  the  troubles  went  on  apace,  as  we  have  seen.  The 
North  continued  her  sympathy  and  support.  Dr.  Robinson,  the 
"general,  in  command"  of  the  insurgents,  was  declared  a  traitor  to 
the  United  States,  arrested  and  imprisoned.  In  my  closing  chapter 
I  show  how  the  North,  as  it  began  to  get  possession  of  the  machinery 
of  the  Federal  government,  used  its  strong  arm  to  extricate  him  and 
his  fellow- traitors.  Lane,  the  second  in  command,  continued  at 
the  head  of  hundreds  of  well-armed  men.  No  request  for  help 
from  the  North  was  made  in  vain.  Sheriff  Jones  was  shot  while  in 
Lawrence  on  duty  with  United  States  soldiers.  On  May  8,  1856, 
ex-Governor  Reeder  resisted  a  writ  in  the  hands  of  Deputy  United 
States  Marshal  Fain,  and  threatened  the  officer's  life.  Reeder  was 
trying  to  carry  out  his  obligation  to  support  sedition  and  to  resist, 
even  if  doing  so  meant  the  loss  of  his  life,  the  lawful  authority ;  I 
refer  to  the  obligation  which  I  have  herein  previously  given.  The 
rejection  of  the  fair  and  equitable  plan  from  the  South  by  Toombs 
showed  that  the  North  meant  to  crush  the  South  by  first  begin 
ning  with  the  Southern  people  in  Kansas.  The  unfairness  and  par 
tisan  character  of  the  Northern  members  in  Congress  were  attested 
by  the  character  of  the  onti -Southern  members  on  the  committee 

""Spring,  History  Kans.,  107. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  investigation.  These  members  showed  their  unfairness  not  alone 
in  their  report,  but  by  their  actions  while  the  investigation  was  in 
progress.  For  instance,  while  serving  on  the  committee,  Messes. 
Howard  and  Sherman  spent  an  entire  night  at  Topeka  in  plotting 
with  Robinson  and  W.  Y.  Eoberts  against  the  orders  of  the  United 
States  Territorial  governor,  and  laws  passed  by  the  legally  elected 
Territorial  legislature.  Speaking  of  this  nocturnal  conference,  Mr. 
Spring,  who  is  quoted  by  all  Northern  historians  as  authority,  says, 
"The  conclusions  reached  at  the  conference  had  a  belligerent 
look."50  They  agreed  upon  continued  resistance,  and  Eobinson  was 
to  go  East  for  further  help.  No  wonder  we  have  a  grossly  partisan 
report  from  Messrs.  Sherman  and  Howard;  they  were  participes 
criminis.  Pursuant  to  the  agreement,  Eobinson  started  North,  but 
was  arrested  and  detained,  as  I  have  stated.  Encouraged  by  the 
very  men  whose  duty  it  was  impartially  to  determine  the  questions 
involved,  the  insurgents  became  yet  bolder  and  more  aggressive. 
Then  followed  the  massacre — one  of  the  blackest  in  the  annals  of 
America — at  Pattawatomie,  in  which  John  Brown  incited  and  led 
a  small  band  of  the  insurgents,  Northern  free- State  men,  to  mur 
der.'  Five  unoffending  Southern  men  were  dragged  from  their  beds, 
and  "mortally  hacked  and  slashed  with  cutlasses/'  Howard  and 
Sherman,  the  Eepublican  members  of  the  investigating  committee, 
declined  to  enter  into  an  investigation  of  this  revolting  affair, — to 
investigate  which  and  to  report  the  facts  to  Congress  was  clearly 
within  their  duty;  they  had  been  ordered  to  investigate  all  alleged 
violations  of  law,  whether  it  be  that  of  the  Territorial  law  or  other 
wise,  as  well  as  to  inquire  into  all  charges  of  fraud  or  force  or  inti 
midation  in  the  elections.508  This  refusal  lent  to  the  affair  moral 
approval  as  well  as  indicated  deep  partisan  prejudices.  Shortly 
after  this  affair  Brown  and  his  insurgent  forces  fought  a  "battle" 
with  a  number  of  Missourians  who  were  acting  in  conjunction  with 
the  United  States  forces.  Sharp's  rifles,  contributed  by  public  sub 
scription  or  private  Northern  money,  gave  Brown  the  victory. 
Northern  men,  led  by  Brown,  "armed  with  Sharp's  rifles,  pistols, 
bowie-knives,  and  other  deadly  weapons,"  flushed  with  victory,  then 
fell  to  robbing  stores — upon  one  raid  they  forcibly  intruded  into  the 


507History  Kans.,  115. 

.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  636.   675,  690,  291. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

private  apartments  of  a  young  kdy — and  otherwise  terrorized  the 
land.50"  From  all  over  the  Territory,  especially  from  Lawrence,  the 
"free-State  men  were  astir."  In  addition  to  the  several  leaders  of 
the  Northern  party  which  I  have  mentioned,  Walker,  Crocklin,  Ab 
bott,  Whinncy,  Shoe,  all  took  the  field  with  each  his  men  well  armed. 
The  coming  of  Buford,  of  Alabama,  accompanied  by  Titus,  is  gen 
erally  misrepresented  or  improperly  estimated.  Buford  and  his 
men  did  not  reach  the  Territory  until  May,  1856;  this  was  shortly 
after  his  company  had  been  gathered.510  The  Northern  rebellion 
was  then  in  full  blast,  and  it  was  to  counteract  it  that  Buford  left 
the  South.  His  movement  was  on  the  principle  of  a  "volunteer 
militia  to  sustain  the  laws"  of  what  the  President  of  the  United 
States  had  declared  to  be  the  lawful  legislature,  but  at  the  same 
time  he  meant  to  make  every  man  he  carried  to  Kansas  an  actual 
settler.  January  19,  1856,  in  the  Alabama  Spirit  of  the  South,  he 
set  forth  the  objects  and  requirements  of  his  movement  in  plain 
words.  He  said,  "By  way  of  remunerating  me  for  the  privilege  of 
joining  my  party,  for  subsistence  and  transportation  to  Kansas, 
and  for  furnishing  means  to  enter  his  pre-emption,  each  emigrant 
agrees  to  acquire  a  pre-emption,  and  to  pay  me,  when  his  titles  are 
perfected,  a  sum  equal  to  the  value  of  one-half  of  his  pre-emption, 
which  obligation  he  may  discharge  in  money  or  property  at  a  fair 
valuation,  at  his  own  option.  ...  I  am  asked,  'What  military  and 
other  service  do  I  require?'  None,  except  that  when  he  gets  to 
Kansas,  the  emigrant  shall  begin  some  honest  employment  for  a 
living — if  it  be  working  on  his  claim — that  will  give  him  credit  to 
buy  bread  on.  On  his  way  there  he  is  expected  to  be  orderly  and 
temperate,  to  attend  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  prayer 
night  and  morning,  learn  to  fear  God,  to  be  charitable  to  our  ene 
mies,  gentle  with  females  and  those  in  our  power,  merciful  to 
slaves  and  beasts,  and  just  to  all  men/'511 

His  was  the  only  considerable  or  important  movement  from  the 
South.  This  party,  no  sooner  than  it  entered  Kansas,  was  ordered 
by  those  in  command  of  the  United  States  troops,  whose  business 
was  to  prevent  all  large  parties  of  armed  emigrants  from  entering 

509Rept.  Corns.,  36  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  III.,  1317,  1310  ;  Spring,  History  Kans., 
157  ;  Rhodes,  History  TJ.  S.,  Vol.  II.,  ch.  7. 

510Repts.  Corns..  36  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  III.,  937. 
"'Quoted  in  Brewerton,  The  War  in  Kans.   (1856),  213. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £33 

the  Territory  at  that  time,  to  retire.  This  they  peaceably  and 
without  unnecessary  delay  did.512  (See  Clayton,  under  Authorities.) 
The  North  was  more  determined.  "A  fierce  agitation  flamed  and 
roared  like  a  prairie  fire  from  Boston  to  the  Northwest,"  says  a  sym 
pathizing  Northern  writer.  New  societies  of  abolition,  or  free-State, 
people  were  formed  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  aid  for  the  conflict ; 
one  organization  "harvested  not  less  than  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  for  Kansas  purposes."  The  Massachusetts  committee  secured 
large  supplies  in  addition  to  eighty  thousand  dollars.  "The  Grand 
Kansas  Aid  Society/'  organized  in  Buffalo,  New  York,  raised  in 
July,  1856,  two  hundred  thousand  dollars.513  "Eager  cooperative 
activities  awoke  on  every  side"  in  the  North.514  Armed  bodies  of 
men  continued  to  arrive.  C.  B.  Limes,  for  instance,  arrived  from 
New  Haven,  Connecticut,  with  "seventy-nine  resolute  men,"  armed 
with  Sharp's  carbines.  The  famous  Amos  A.  Lawrence  and  Dr. 
Samuel  Cabot,  of  Boston,  shipped  at  one  time  four  thousand  dollars 
worth  of  the  famous  Sharp's  rifles.  September  19,  1856,  Rev. 
Theo.  Parker  wrote,  "Dr.  Howe  and  others  raised  five  thousand  dol 
lars  last  week  to  buy  Sharp's  rifles.  We  want  a  thousand  rifles,  and 
got  two  hundred  in  one  day."53  On  September  20th  following,  the 
same  distinguished  Boston  minister  read  to  his  Sunday  congrega 
tion  reports  by  Northern  writers  concerning  Kansas  and  the  opera.- 
tions  which  the  North  was  there  supporting,  omitted  the  Bible  les 
son,  took  up  a  collection  on  behalf  of  the  rebels,  and  got  $300."° 
Well  did  these  influential  Northern  men  know  that  before  this  aid 
given  by  them,  t}ie  President  of  the  United  States  had  declared  the 
Northern  sedition  and  resistance  then  in  progress  to  be  rebellion.5" 
This  money  was  for  the  same  men,  for  the  same  cause,  and  to  fur 
ther  nothing  other  than  the  identical  rebellion  then  yet  in  prog 
ress  against  both  Territorial  and  Federal  laws.  It  was  well  known 
that  there  had  been  no  change  whatever  in  the  situation.  These 
Northerners  knowingly  shrank  not  from  furnishing  guns  and  money 
to  active,  organized  rebels  against  the  authority  and  government  of 


812Sen.  Docs.,  3  sess.,  34  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  50  ;  Ib.,  Vol.  II.,  73. 

!13Harper's  Book  of  Facts,  Kansas. 

514Spring,  History  Kans.,  164. 

515Frothingham,  Life  of  Theo.   Parker.  437. 

516Ib.,  438. 

517Supra. 


234  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

the  United  States.  This  was  none  other  than  open  war,  yet  it  was 
none  other  than  what  these  abettors  and  aiders  wanted.  Parker  so 
declared  on  November  16,  1856,  when  he  said,  "We  must  settle  this 
question  by  the  sword.  There  are  two  constitutions  for  America, — 
one  written  on  parchment  and  laid  up  at  Washington;  the  other 
also  on  parchment,  lut  on  the  head  of  a  drum!'™ 

Some  of  the  contemporary  writers,  boasting  of  their  bloody  deeds, 
give  us  pictures  which  more  recent  historians  shrink  to  repeat. 
Prominent  among  such  early  writers  was  William  P.  Tomlinson,  a 
young  New  Yorker  who  went  to  Kansas  in  1858.  He  wrote  before 
the  true  import  of  what  he  recorded  could  be  seen.  There  is  not  a 
line  in  his  book  which  shows  that  the  South,  directly  or  indirectly; 
had  any  connection  with  the  deeds  of  violence  committed  by  a  few 
individuals  who  were  Southern  born.  Such  men,  I  must  be  par 
doned  for  repeating,  were  neither  aided,  encouraged,  nor  in  any 
way  abetted,  either  before  or  after  the  fact,  by  the  South,  or  by 
Southern  people  or  sympathizers.  But  there  is  much  in  Mr.  Tom- 
linson's  book  to  show  the  complicity 'of  the  North  in  the  bloody  re 
bellion  against  the  Federal  laws  and  authority  and  against  the  Ter 
ritorial  laws  and  authority.  It  is  a  valuable  witness  to  corroborate 
the  other  evidence  which  I  have  adduced  to  sustain  the  counts  in 
my  indictment.  He  fully  corroborates  what  Governor  Shannon 
says  in  his  report  to  the  President,  and  shows  that  Shannon's  fears 
were  literally  fulfilled.  He  fully  sustains  the  scores  of  witnesses  ex 
amined  by  the  Congressional  committee,  which  were  introduced  to 
show  the  sedition  and  its  support  from  the  North. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  we  saw  Major  Abbott  in  Massachu 
setts,  procuring  and  packing  on  a  Sunday,  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  Sharp's  rifles  and  other  munitions  of 
war.  It  will  be  remembered,  too,  that  this  was  long  before  Dow  was 
killed,  and  shortly  after  the  election  of  the  legislature  on  March  30, 
1855.  About  the  time  that  Mr.  Tomlinson  was  making  his  Kan 
sas  trip,  this  same  Major  Abbott  was  operating  in  full  vigor  on  the 
Kansas  plains.  The  major  had  instituted  a  "court"  composed  of 
free-State  people:  they  were  those  who  were  in  full  sympathy  with 
or  actually  engaged  in  the  rebellion.  Before  this  body  he  dragged 
and  "tried"  and  fined  his  Southern  or  pro-slavery  neighbors.  Since 


M8Ib.,  440. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £35 

the  days  of  the  Feudal  lords — in  fact,  the  famous  Spanish  inquisi 
tion  would  be  needed  to  furnish  a  parallel — such  an  abortion  of 
law,  order,  and  justice  has  not  been  known.  He  made  no  pretence  to 
authority  other  than  that  which  he  professed  to  derive  from  the  re 
bellious  government  or  from  force.  On  one  occasion  a  United  States 
officer,  Marshall  Little,  was  sent  to  take  "Judge"  Abbott  and  his 
"court  officers."  Tomlinson  tells  us  that,  "On  the  15th  of  Decem 
ber  Major  Abbott  and  Dr.  —  "  were  found  by  the  United 
States  officer  and  his  men  holding  "Citizens'  Court."  "The  court," 
the  writer  continues,  "was  held  in  a  log  building,  which  had  been 
converted  into  a  tolerable  Fort,  being  furnished  with  loop-holes, 
etc,"  The  Federal  officer  notified  the  insurgents  that  he  held  papers 
for  their  arrest,  and  demanded  their  surrender.  The  insurgents 
refused  his  demand,  upon  which  he  advanced  on  the  building.  "As 
they  came  up  to  the  fort,  the  squatters  opened  upon  them  a  steady 
and  destructive  fire/'  in  which  the  marshal  was  wounded  and  some 
of  his  men  killed.  Here  is  the  direct  result  of  Northern  guns,  of 
Northern  encouragement,  and  the  outcome  of  the  "popular  North 
ern  subscriptions,"  again  in  contact  with  Federal  authority.519 

The  place  where  Abbott  and  his  men  held  their  court  was  known 
as  "Fort  Bayne."  He  had  succeeded  in  driving  off  the  officers  of 
the  law;  he  had  defied  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  What 
was  the  result  after  he  had  time^for  deliberation?  Did  the  illegal 
court  disband?  By  no  means!  The  notorious  Montgomery  or 
ganized,  drilled,  and  equipped  a  new  company  of  Northern  men  for 
the  purpose  of  defending  Abbott  against  further  molestation  from 
any  opposing  source  whatever.  For  months  again  he  held  the  coun 
try  in  terror.  A  Territorial  and  lawful  judge  was  arrested  by  the 
insurgents  as  he  was  quietly  passing  along  the  highway.520  Not  con 
tent  with  resisting  and  maltreating  the  Territorial  and  Federal  offi 
cers,  Montgomery  and  his  men,  armed  with  Sharp's  rifles,  visited 
the  homes  of  Southern  men  and  ordered  them  to  leave  the  Terri 
tory.521  If  this  order  was  not  immediately  obeyed,  Tomlinson  says 
their  "homes"  were  searched,  and  "aons,  ammunition,  and  horses, 
etc.,  taken  from  them."  What  the  "etc."  was  the  writer  leaves  us 


519Tomlinson's  Kansas  in  1858,  179,  181. 
820Ib.,  159. 
B21Ib.,  175. 


236  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

to  guess.  After  the  frontiersman  had  had  his  "arms,  ammunition 
and  horses"  stolen  or  taken  by  illegal  brute  force,  what  could  the 
poor  fellow  have  had  left?  Perhaps  the  strength  to  carry  his  wife 
and  children  out  of  the  woods  or  off  of  the  prairie  on  his  back ! 

Without  taking  the  time  to  go  into  details  concerning  Mont 
gomery's  movements,  I  stop  to  recount  but  one  or  two  of  his  "feats." 
On  one  occasion  he  and  eight  men  were  out  on  a  reconnoitering  ex 
pedition.  They  were  discovered  near  a  United  States  fort.  Capt. 
Anderson,  of  the  United  States  army,  in  command  of  a  body  of 
regular  soldiers,  went  after  these  insurgents.  Montgomery  and  his 
band  took  cover;  as  soon  as  the  soldiers  were  in  range  of  his  Sharp's 
rifles,  he  opened  fire.  Our  Northern  writer  gives  us  the  result: 
"The  Free-State  loss  was  none,  and  but  one  man  was  wounded,  and 
he  only  slightly.  .  .  .  The  loss  to  the  troops  was  considerable."52'' 
"The  blood  oozed  from  the  wounded  men  lying  in  all  positions  upon 
the  velvety  sward."  Capt.  Anderson,  apparently  dying,  lay  under 
his  fallen  horse.  The  rebels  wanted  the  guns  of  the  fallen  soldiers, 
"but  their  leader  would  not  allow  it.  It  was  Uncle  Sam's  property, 
he  said,  .  .  .  and  it  was  not  right  to  steal  from  the  old  gentleman,  .  .  . 
but  when  the  old  gentleman  got  out  of  his  place  it  was  perfectly 
right  to  learn  him  his  place."5' ;  A  wonderful  ethical  faculty,  this,— 
the  ability  to  distinguish  the  sin  of  theft  while  reveling  in  assassi 
nation!  Mr.  Tomlinson  continues:  "By  that  fight — the  fight  be 
tween  the  settlers  and  the  federal  soldiery  in  Kansas — it  was  satis 
factorily  demonstrated  that  a  Sharp's  rifle  ball,  carefully  directed, 
would  have  the  same  effect  upon  a  dragoon  as  upon  a  common  man, 
and  the  soldiers  of  Fort  Scott,  by  their  after-conduct,  gave  evidence 
that  the  demonstration  was  not  wholly  lost  upon  them."524 

It  would  be  superfluous  again  to  call  attention  to  the  responsi 
bility  of  the  North  for  this  blood  of  Union  soldiers.  "Eich  NeAV 
Englanders,"  those  who  contributed  to  "popular  subscriptions," 
those  who  "like  a  flaming  meteor"  had  helped  to  arouse  the  North, — 
had  armed  in  time  of  peace  and  months  before  any  hostile  demon 
stration  by  their  political  opponents,  Abbott,  Lane,  Robinson,  and 
the  many  hundreds  of  others ;  Abbott  and  his  associates  had  called 


822Ib.,  199. 
823Ib.,  200. 
52*Ib.,  201. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  &37 

out,  armed,  encouraged,  and  incited  Montgomery;  from  his  hiding 
place  Montgomery  murdered  United  States  soldiers  while  they  were 
in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duty.  But  the  connection  between 
cause  and  effect  did  not  stop  at  this.  "From  all  parts  of  the  Terri 
tory,"  says  Tomlinson,  "congratulations  poured  in  on  Montgom 
ery."523  "The  Lawrence  Republican  [established  by  Northern  capi 
tal],  in  an  able  editorial,  expressed  its  approbation  in  unmistakable 
language,  and  among  the  true  friends  of  freedom  all  over  the  Ter 
ritory,  wherever  the  affair  was  understood;  there  was  but  one  gen 
eral  sentiment  of  approbation."35  A  would-be  bard  composed  the 
"Song  of  Montgomery's  Men,"  one  stanza  of  which  will  be  sufficient 
to  show  the  sense  in  which  his  deeds  of  violence  were  received : 

"  Every  man  of  Montgomery's  band 

Shall  live  on  history's  page, 
And  Montgomery's  name  have  deathless  fame 
Upon  the  Little  Osage." 

A  public  dinner  was  given  to  Montgomery  in  Osawatomie,  "where 
he  and  his  band  were  applauded  for  their  deeds  in  speeches  made  by 
Chas.  A.  Foster  and  others."527 

Encouraged,  elated,  and  fully  sustained  by  the  abolition  or  in 
surgent  element,  Montgomery  became  more  aggressive.  He  went  so 
far  as  to  attack  Fort  Scott.628  In  the  darkness,  for  the  attack  was 
under  cover  of  night,  the  "sentinels  were  quietly  secured,"  and  the 
fort  and  the  hotel  were  set  on  fire.  The  soldiers  responded  quickly 
to  the  alarm.  Tomlinson  says,  "But  scarcely  had  they  collected, 
before  a  fire  was  opened  upon  them  by  the  men  of  Montgomery  from 
a  ravine  close  at  hand  to  which  they  had  retreated.  .  .  .  There  is 
something  exciting  in  the  rapid  discharge  of  Sharp's  rifles.  .  .  .  The 
firing  was  kept  up  by  the  little  band  of  Montgomery  until  the  fire 
[which  had  failed  to  spread]  .  .  .  had  died  away,  enveloping  the 
town  in  pitchy  darkness,  when  the  little  party  of  Free-State  men 
slowly  and  in  orderly  manner  left  the  place."55  Again  here  were 
those  deadly  Northern  guns,  contributed  by  "Rich  New  England- 


52SIb.,  201. 

5MIb.,  202. 

527Kan.  Historical  Cols..  Vol.  V.,  532. 

528Ib. 

216. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ers,"  or  bought  "by  popular  subscription;1'  having  been  "shipped  by 
the  carload/'  carrying  out  Northern  resolutions,  "at  all  hazards/' 
in  a  truly  exciting,  loyal  ( !)  manner.  But  in  this  attack  on  the 
public  property  and  soldiery  of  the  United  States,  Federal  troops 
alone  did  not  suffer.  Tomlinson  further  says,  "The  shrieks  of  the 
women  and  the  children  could  be  heard  above  the  sharp  reports  of 
the  firearms."5'  This  witness  who  thus  deposes  to  us  through  his 
history  published  shortly  after  the  events  which  he  describes,  was 
a  Northern  man,  an  abolitionist,  an  anti-slavery  man,  an  insurrec 
tionist  himself,  and  an  eye  witness.  His  story  was  published  before 
the  North  had  time  or  opportunity  to  fabricate  a  version  of  the 
"Kansas  war."  Mr.  L.  W.  Spring  wrote  his  history  of  Kansas  in 
1885.  He  is  taken  as  authority  by  Northern  writers.  He.  is  given 
as  the  authority  for  many  statements  made  by  such  eminent  histo 
rians  as  Channing  and  Rhodes.  He  is  in  sympathy  with  the  n1 
tion  movement;  and  so  far  as  one  can  judge  from  his  work,  he  is  in 
full  sympathy  with  the  free-State  movement  in  his  own  State  of 
Kansas.  There  is  nothing  in  his  writings  which  shows  that  the 
South  had  the  slightest  connection  with  the  individual  wrongs  done 
by  the  Southern  or  pro-slavery  men  in  Kansas;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  substantially  corroborates  the  statements  of  Tomlinson. 
So  from  the  most  reliable  historical  sources,  there  can  be  no  other 
conclusion  than  that  the  insurrection  was  against  both  Territorial 
and  Federal  authority.  To  quote  Mr.  Spring  again:  "Free-State 
men  in  the  Southwest,  comparatively  isolated,  having  little  com 
munication  with  Lawrence,  and  consequently  almost  wholly  with 
out  check,  developed  a  successful  if  not  very  praiseworthy  system  of 
retaliation.  Confederated  at  first  for  defence  against  pro-slavery 
outrages,  but  ultimately  falling  more  or  less  completely  into  the 
vocation  of  robbers  and  assassins  they  have  received  the  name — 
whatever  its  origin  may  be — of  jayhawkers."5'  The  section  of  coun 
try  of  which  he  here  speaks  was  that  in  which  Montgomery  was  oper 
ating.  They  were  not  so  isolated  from  nor  had  so  little  communica 
tion  with  Lawrence  as  this  seems  to  indicate.  Northern  residents  of 
Lawrence  sustained  or  encouraged  in  a  very  large  measure  to  the  very 
last  these  murderers.  Just  over  on  page  242,  Mr.  Spring,  after  stat- 

580Ib.,  217. 

"'History  Kans.,  240. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  £39 

ing  that  a  delegation  of  these  desperadoes  had  been  sent  to  Lawrence 
for  help  in  December,  1857,  continues,  "However,  a  small  company 
from  the  vicinity  of  Lawrence,  led  by  Capt.  [Major]  J.  B.  Abbott, 
returned  with  the  messengers  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  af 
fairs  and  of  lending  such  assistance  to  the  free-State  men  that 
might  be  possible  or  advisable."     We  have  already  seen  "Captain- 
Major"  Abbott  operating  vigorously  in  this  same  locality  in  the 
following  year.    Mr.  Spring  informs  us  that  after  Abbott  and  his 
Lawrence  friends  arrived  at  their  destination,  they  "arrested"  a 
citizen  of  Missouri  and  "tried"  him  before  one  of  those  illegal,  ir 
regular,  seditious  courts  of  which  Mr.  Tomlinson  tells  us.     Of  this 
particular  session  Mr.   Spring  says,  "The  officers  of  which  were 
mostly  drawn  from  the  Lawrence  party."     Evidently,  then,  Law 
rence,  the  center  of  the  disturbance,  did  her  share  to  prolong  the 
struggle.    Abbott  was  the  very  man  who  had  packed  his  carbines  on 
a  Sunday  in  the  North  some  years  before ;  he  continued  to  the  last 
to  be  the  "fully  accredit"  agent  of  the  rebellion.     This  so-called 
court,  as  we  saw,  continued  its  usurpation  until  close  onto  the  Civil 
War;  finally  it  was  suppressed  by  the  Federal   authority.     Mr. 
Spring  details  some  of  the  attempts  of  the  Federal  authorities  to 
disband  this  organization.     After  considerable  ineffectual  hunting, 
the  Federal  officer  discovered  the  "fort"  and  the  "court."  The  build 
ing  was  surrounded,  and  the  Federal  officer  said  to  the  insurgents, 
"Gentlemen,  you  will  understand  that  you  are  dealing  with  the 
United  States,  and  not  with  border  ruffians."     He  then  ordered  a 
full  surrender,  and  after  a  wait  of  thirty  minutes,  charged  the  "ju 
dicial"  gentlemen,     Mr.  Spring  says,  "A  dozen  Sharp's  rifles  re 
sponded  to  the  charge,"  and  the  Federal  officers  were  driven  off. 
The  Federal  force  was  increased;  but,  so  Spring  says,  "'Reinforce 
ments  hurried  down  from  Lawrence"  to  the  aid  of  the  rebels.532 
The  southeast  was  not  so  isolated  after  all !     Communication  with 
Lawrence  was  so  complete  that  the  lawful,  rightful  officers  were 
forced  to  retire,  and.  sedition  went  unpunished. 

Events  were  now  hastening;  the  Presidential  election  trembled 
in  the  balance,  and  a  nation  stood  in  awe  of  the  result,  Lincoln 
became  the  President,  not  because  a  majority  of  the  sovereign  vot 
ers  of  the  United  States  chose  him,  but  because  his  next  highest  op- 


240  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ponent  had  lost  the  requisite  electoral  votes;  Southern  members 
began  to  withdraw  from  Congress,  after  which,  scarred  with  the 
seal  of  the  Northern  political  policy,  Kansas  became  a  State.  She 
entered  the  Union  stained  with  blood, — blood  shed  certainly  not  to 
make  a  home  for  the  free  negro  or  to  •secure  freedom  to  him  or 
bring  him  from  under  the  yoke.  The  Northern  party  had  denied 
the  negro  or  his  mulatto  cousin  a  home  or  a  resting  place  in  Kan 
sas.  This,  in  various  unmistakable  ways,  was  declared  to  be  their 
position,  especially  in  the  government  resting  upon  the  Topeka 
constitution,  which  forbade  free  negroes  or  mulattoes  to  come  into 
or  reside  in  the  State.  This  provision  was  sanctioned,  it  will  be  re 
membered,  by  almost  an  unanimous  vote  of  the  Xorthern  ele 
ment.533  But  if  not  in  the  interests  of  enslaved  humanity,  where 
did  the  North  find  a  motive  for  such  gigantic  movements,  such  de 
termined  and  aggressive  onslaughts  upon  the  Constitutional  rights 
of  the  South  ?  Let  us  go  once  again  to  the  fountain  source  of  that 
movement  which  not  alone  itself  spurned  all  legal  ethics,  but  which 
fanned  into  a  consuming  flame  less  aggressive  agencies — back  to 
the  plans  set  out  and  the  appeals  made  for  their  support  by  the  or 
ganizing  committee  of  the  original  emigrant  incubator,  to  the  re 
port  drawn  by  E.  E.  Hale,  D.  P.,  and  others  interested  with  him, 
and  published  by  them  in  1854.  As  a  motive  for  capturing  the 
new  territories  they  declared :  "Whether  the  new  line  of  states  shall 
be  free  states,  is  a  question  deeply  interesting  to  those  who  are  to 
provide  the  manufactories  for  their  consumption.  Especially  will 
it  prove  an  advantage  to  Massachusetts  if  she  creates  the  new  states 
by  her  foresight — supply  the  first  necessities  to  its  inhabitants,  and 
open  in  the  outset  communications  between  their  homes  and  her 
ports  and  factories."5'' 

There  is  the  motive,  the  prime  object — there  is  the  secret  for 
manufacturing  New  England's  plans  of  bold  conquest.  That  sec 
tion,  through  rich  and  influential  men,  declares  she  means  to  check 
the  forming  of  new  slave  States,  to  put  a  cordon  of  free  States  from 
Minnesota  to  the  Gulf,  and  after  that  to  invade  Missouri  and  Vir 
ginia.  The  world  looked  on  and  saw  upon  the  banner  of  the  North 
ern  crusade :  "A  Free-State" ;  but  as  the  conflict  deepened  leaders 

M8Kan.  Hist.  Cols.,  Vol.  V.,  339. 

«»E.  E.  Hale,  Kanzas  and  Nebraska   (18."i4),  226. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

then  and  too  many  of  their  chroniclers  since  resorted  to  equivoca 
tion  and  subterfuge  to  blind  that  world  to  the  utter  want  of  philan 
thropic  consideration  for  either  the  slave  or  free  negro — and  of  the 
latter  there  were  then  in  the  South  hundreds  of  thousands.  The 
Northern  masses  were  blinded  to  the  fact  that  their  manufacturing 
or  importing  leaders  wanted  free  States  with  white  labor,  because 
slave  States  bought  little ;  so  simple  was  slave  life  and  so  crude  were 
the  instruments  and  machinery  used  by  servile  labor,  that  manu 
facturing  New  England  found  the  Southern  States  commercially 
unprofitable  neighbors.  Hence,  many  of  her  leaders  augmented  the 
perverted  and  mad  mania  already  abroad  in  her  borders  to  provide 
new  and  profitable  markets,  and  to  open  "communications  between 
their  homes  and  her  ports  and  factories." 

So  the  "North,  in  the  end,"  using  the  language  of  Mr.  Sparks,  a 
non-Southerner  writer,  "won,  as  she  always  did,  through  geographi 
cal  and  commercial  advantages.  Her  urban  population  gave  her 
great  advantage  in  securing  bodies  of  emigrants,  her  superior  re 
sources  furnished  the  means  to  send  them,  and  her  better  facilities 
for  transportation  made  the  going  easier  and  more  attractive. 
And  all  her  people,  although  acting  from  interested  motives  of 
gaining  territory,  were  wrought  up  almost  to  a  frenzy  by  the  in 
spiration  of  a  ' cause/  whilst  the  Southern  people  were  contending 
for  their  property  and  their  rights."55 


BSSThe  Expansion  of  the  Am.  People,  3G2. 


XI. 

DEPREDATIONS    AFFECTING    THE    EXIST 
ING  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

The  Kansas  troubles  had  found  their  opportunity  in  the  scramble 
for  territory.  While  they  were  by  no  means  local  in  their  effect, 
yet,  long  before  this  territorial  war,  other  depredations  of  wider 
sweep  had  been  preying  upon  the  South.  These  were  of  great 
power  in  shaping  the  history  of  the  pre-bellum  period.  Under  the 
second  count  in  the  indictment  against  the  North  which  I  have 
herein  formulated  on  behalf  of  the  South,  I  placed  the  illegal,  un- 
<x>nstitutional,  UNWARRANTED,  interference  with  the  property 
interests  of  the  existing  Southern  States.  I  stated  that  these  led, 
not  alone  to  financial  losses,  but  to  imminent  danger  to  the  lives, 
homes,  and  female  security  of  the  South.  The  most  potent  agency 
in  this  direction  is  what  was  commonly  called  the  "Underground 
Railroad," — with  all  its  incidental  and  cooperative  agencies.  Most 
of  the  literature  descriptive  of  this  institution  is  either  fragmen 
tary  or  very  local ;  and  I  am  of  the  decided  opinion  that  the  mas 
sive  volume  by  Prof.  W.  H.  Siebert,  of  the  Ohio  State  University, 
is  in  the  main  fair;  reliable,  and  certainly  the  only  comprehensive 
work  to  which  my  attention  has  been  called.  Dr.  A.  B.  Hart,  pro 
fessor  of  history  in  Harvard  University,  in  his  introduction  to  this 
work,  makes  an  error  common  to  Northern  writers.  He  says,  ".  .  . 
abolitionists  felt  a  moral  responsibility  even  though  property-own 
ers  suffered.  ...  In  aiding  fugitive  slaves  the  abolitionist  was  .  .  . 
enjoying  the  most  romantic  and  exciting  amusement  open  to  men 
who  had  high  moral  standards.'7  He  states  this  position  as  confi 
dently  as  though  there  were  no  questions  as  to  the  correctness  of 
these  "high  moral  standards."  Anarchists  profess  to  believe  in  the 
moral  justification  of  their  murderous  assaults  upon  governmental* 
functionaries.  Yet  the  consensus  of  sane  mankind  brands  them  as 
murderers  of  the  very  lowest  moral  standards.  They  are  univer 
sally  admitted  to  be  either  grossly  immoral  or  hopelessly  insane. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  243 

A  man  who  does  what  is  productive  of  infinitely  greater  harm  than 
the  evil  he  seeks  to  remedy,  when  there  was  within  his  power  such 
information  as  would  have  led  him  to  see  the  result ;  or,  having  the 
information  before  the  mind,  acts  in  utter  disregard  of  it,  is  either 
a  grossly  immoral  man  oi\  one  of  dangerously  abnormal  mental 
balance.  The  South  submits  to  the  candid  and  unprejudiced  judg 
ment  of  the  learned  world  that  the  acts  of  the  abolitionists  made 
the  conditions  of  slavery  unavoidably  harder;  and  that  their  "ro 
mantic  and  exciting  amusement"  procrastinated  the  emancipation 
of  the  Southern  slaves;  and,  therefore,  that  the  abolitionists  were 
not  "men  who  had  high  moral  standards," — since  all  the  facilities 
for  the  exercise  of  enlightened  moral  judgment  were  within  their 
power. 

The  liquor  traffic  yearly  sends  to  their  graves  a  great  army  of 
drunkards;  in  thousands  of  desolate  homes  are  heartbroken  wives 
and  mothers  to  whose  tattered  garments  cling  puny  children  that 
shall  never  know  the  common  comforts  of  life ;  our  criminal  courts 
overflow  with  the  product  of  the  saloon;  directly  and  indirectly  we 
spend  enormous  millions  in  making  a  sickly  effort  to  right  the  evils 
of  the  whiskey  dispensers.  The  stench  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  so 
powerful  that  it  has  become  'a  narcotic  to  the  American  people. 
Dens  of  prostitution  where  once  innocent  women  go  down  to  deep 
est  perdition,  and  dives  of  vice  where  innocent  boys  are  begrimed, 
with  sins  of  which  their  mothers  have  never  dreamed,  have  become 
the  inevitable  satellites  of  the  saloon.  Would  moralists  be  justi 
fied  in  the  systematic  and  persistent  destruction  of  the  property 
used  in  such  places:  or  in  pursuing  an  unlawful  course  in  their  ef 
fort  to  rid  the  community  of  the  evil?  To  do  so  would  lead  to 
anarchy  or  war, — would  be  the  subversion  of  law  and  government. 
In  its  application  to  slavery  the  illustration  is  apt.  The  question 
is,  Would  such  a  course  stop  the  evil,  materially  mitigate  it,  or  pro 
duce  conditions  of  less  evil  ?  Just  such  a  course  as  was  pursued  by 
the  abolitionists  did  not  stop  or  mitigate  slavery;  therefore,  unjus 
tifiable  and  inexcusable, — the  product  of  unreasoning  fanatacism. 

When  one  examines  the  great  mass  of  facts,  now  being  admitted 
for  practically  the  first  time  by  Northern  historians — especially 
when  it  is  realized  that  the  half  has  not  been  told,  mainly  owing 
to  the  loss  of  evidence — there  is  an  inclination  to  believe  that  many 


244  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  the  great  efforts  to  run  so  many  slaves  out  of  the  South,  was  a 
scheme  to  try  to  force  the  South  to  buy  the  slaves  which  Northern 
importers  were  anxious  to  sell.  From  all  parts  of  the  South  emis 
saries  were  constantly  inducing  the  slaves  to  go  at  the  most  inoppor 
tune  time  for  the  master.  The  crop  comes  on,  the  cotton  is  white 
for  the  harvest,  the  rice  is  waiting  for  garnering,  the  corn  is  brown 
in  the  husk, — the  master  suddenly  finds  his  best  field  help  gone- 
gone  northward  by  way  of  the  "underground."  From  some  source 
the  vacancy  must  be  supplied  or  much  of  the  crop  will  be  lost;  and 
a  material  losfe  of  the  crop  means  suffering,  in  many  cases ;  in  others, 
hard  privations,  for  wife  and  children.  Except  inferentially,  his 
tory  does  not  show  any  contract  between  the  "conductors  on  the  un 
derground  system,"  their  various  "passenger  agents"  that  had  been 
sent  throughout  the  South,  and  the  Northern  "importer."  But  if 
men  would  falsify  the  census  of  the  United  States,  as  Seibert  shows 
was  twice  done,  to  cover  up  the  operations  of  the  "railroad  system," 
would  the  thief  who  stole  the  negro  hestitate  to  cooperate  with  the 
pirate  who  enslaved  him  ? 

Perhaps  no  feature  of  slave  legislation  has  caused  more  comment, 
or  been  used  to  justify  more  illegalities,  than  the  various  fugitive 
slave  laws.  In  this,  just  as  when  writing  of  slave  legislation  gen 
erally,  writers  are  too  apt  to  forget  that  New  England  furnishes  us 
more  than  one  of  the  earliest  fugitive  slave  laws.  Of  course,  the 
fact  that  New  England,  or  any  part  of  the  North  did  a  thing,  was 
neither  its  justification  nor  condemnation  so  far  as  the  same  action 
concerned  the  South.  But  the  lesson  to  be  gathered  in  going  to  the 
North  for  her  treatment  of  slaves,  or  her  position  toward  the  negro, 
is  that  whatever  was  in  large  measure  common  to  the  two  sections 
must  have  had  some  justification  under  the  existing  conditions ; 
or  else  that  the  entire  American  people  were  upon  the  same  moral 
plane  from  which,  it  certainly  cannot  be  denied,  they  could  not  be 
removed  within  one  or  two  generations.  Great  moral  reforms  are 
not  wrought  in  a  day,  or  a  generation,  and  scarce  in  the  second  or 
third,  as  I  have  sought  to  show  was  true  of  the  position  touching 
the  slavery  of  other  countries,  which  I  have  discussed  in  another 
division.  We  of  to-day  are  not  so  far  removed  from  the  days  of  our 
Revolutionary  fathers  as  we  are  liable  to  think.  I  represent  the 
third  generation  from  the  American  Revolution.  My  paternal 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  245 

grandfather  came  upon  the  scene  in  those  stormy  days;  he  was  a 
young  man  at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution ;  at  the  time  of  the 
formulation  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Eesolutions  he  was  in 
official  position.  My  father  had  but  reached  the  vigor  of  his  young 
manhood  when  the  crisis  in  the  slavery  conflict  called  him  to  the 
stern  duties  of  the  soldier.  Hence,  the  slave  legislation  of  the  North 
from  its  earliest  times  is  pertinent  to  show  that  the  Southern  peo 
ple  were  not  essentially  different  in  their  slavery  position  from  that 
of  their  northern  neighbors;  and  that  the  slave  laws  of  the  South 
were  not  such  as  were  unworthy  the  moral  conditions  of  their  day. 

In  1643  a  Confederation  existed  between  Plymouth,  Massachu 
setts,  Connecticut,  and  New  Haven,  called  the  New  England  Con 
federation.  In  that  same  year  a  clause  was  incorporated  in  the  Ar 
ticles  of  Confederation  which  is  as  follows:  "If  any  servant  run 
away  from  his  master  into  any  other  of  these  confederated  Juris- 
diccons,  That  in  such  cases  upon  the  Certyncate  of  one  Magistrate 
in  the  Jurisdiccon  out  of  which  the  said  servant  fled,  or  upon  other 
due  proofs,  the  said  servant  shall  be  delivered  either  to  his  master 
or  any  other  that  pursues  and  brings  such  Certyncate  or  proof/' 
Many  other  provisions  were  made  between  the  several  colonies  for 
the  return  of  runaway  negroes.  These  laws  continued  in  force  until 
the  conditions  of  climate  and  industry  made  the  selling-off  of 
Northern  slaves  desirable, — conditions  which  Burgess536  and  the 
many  others  frankly  admit  as  the  causes  of  Northern  emancipation. 
By  no  means  were  the  provisions  concerning  the  return  of  escaped 
slaves  confined  to  the  colonial  period.  Hosmer,  speaking  of  the 
slavery  conditions  in  the  Northern  states,  says,  "The  newspapers  teem 
with  the  advertisements  of  slaves  to  sell,  and  offers  of  reward  for  the 
recovery  of  fugitives."537  Todd  tells  us  that  the  New  York  "news 
papers  did  a  thriving  business  in  publishing  advertisements  of  run 
away  slaves/'  who  were  endeavoring  to  escape  their  Northern  mas 
ters!"1 

In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  objections  to  the 
slave  laws  of  more  recent  years,  those  laws  which  had  the  slaves  of 
the  South  as  their  object.  Of  these  later  and  national  laws  Prof. 


538The  Middle  Period,  42. 

537  A  Short  History  Mississippi  Valley,  162. 

B38Chas.  B.  Todd,  The  Story  of  the  City  of  New  York,  245. 


246  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Channing  says,  "The  right  to  a  jury  trial  was  denied  to  a  person 
designated  as  a  fugitive  slave";  "the  affidavit  of  the  person  claim 
ing  the  negro  was  sufficient  evidence  of  ownership/'539  These  later 
laws  passed  by  the  United  States  Congress  were  but  Northern  slave 
laws  re-enacted.  No  jury  trial  was  allowed  their  runaway  slaves; 
such  slaves  could  be  reclaimed  on  a  mere  certificate;  or,  in  the  ab 
sence  of  such  certificate,  "due  proof"  might  be  made,  which  neither 
gave  nor  was  meant  to  give  trial  by  jury.  In  fact,  throughout  the 
history  of  the  North,  no  section  enacted  more  rigorous  slave  law?, 
or  more  "  'Black  Law?'  of  varying  degrees  of  rigor"340  than  did  her 
people.  The  very  initial  of  the  national  legislation  touching  run 
away  slaves  was  a  Northern  measure,  and  supported  by  Northern 
Congressmen  at  the  solicitation  of  the  Northern  people.  This  first 
legislation  regulating  the  return  of  fugitives  from  labor  was  sup 
ported  by  almost  an  unanimous  Congress ;  out  of  the  entire  number 
in  Congress,  but  seven  voted  against  the  law,  and  part  of  these  were 
from  the  South.  This  law,  enacted  in  1793,  not  essentially  differ 
ent  from  the  revised  form  enacted  in  1850,  did  not  meet  the  de 
sired  ends  because  part  of  its  execution  was  improperly  con 
signed.541  It  show?  that  so  long  as  the  financial  interests  of  the 
North  were  involved,  neither  as  colonies  nor  as  States  did  '?he  hesi 
tate  to  support  a  slave  law  or  a  sla.ve  provision.  But  just  as  «oon  as 
no  financial  gain  was  in  the  North's  favor  by  a  return  of  the  fugi 
tive  slave's  from  the  South,  then  began  the  evor  increasing  efforts 
to  encourage  the  negro  to  flee  from  hi?  master.  So  that  "by  ISoO 
the  Northern  states  were  traversed  by  numerous  line?  of  Under 
ground  Railroad,  and  the  South  was  declaiming  it?  lo??es  of  slave 
property  to  be  enormous.""' 

Again,  in  speaking  of  the  later  Congressional  fugitive  slave  law. 
Prof.  Channing  says,  "There  seems  to  have  been  no  adequate  rea 
son"  for  it.  When  the  North  owned  slaves,  some  of  whom  fled  un 
assisted  and  unencouraged  by  an}  such  powerful  movement  as  the 
"underground"  system,  their  flight  was  thought  an  "adequate  rea- 
?on"  for  a  fugitive  slave  law.  It  seems  very  ?traiige,  at  least  to 
some  of  us  who  know  slavery  only  as  a  matter  of  history,  that  ade- 


539Students'  History  TT.  S.,  463. 
540Smith,  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties,  1 
541Morton  v.  Hunter,  1   Wheaton.  330. 
542Siebert,  The  Underground  Railroad,  22. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  247 

quote  reasons  were  always  indigenous  to  the  North,  and  absolutely 
incapable  of  acclimation  in  the  South.  However  "inadequate"  the 
reason  for  the  fugitive  slave  laws  passed  at  any  time  by  Congress, 
they  found  their  NECESSITY  in  Northern  agitation  and  the  work 
of  slave  emissaries.  It  is  a  practical  certainty  that  if  the  white 
people  of  the  North  had  not  deliberately  entered  a  systematic  rob 
bery  of  slaveholders,  the  laws  of  which  the  North  complained  so  bit 
terly,  such  as  that  of  1850,  would  not  only  never  have  seen  a  statute 
book,  but  would  never  have  been  needed.  Surely  if  Northern  slave 
owners  needed  protection  when  there  was  no  widespread  band  of  il 
legal  slave-kidnappers  and  slave-smugglers,  the  South  did  find  an 
"adequate  reason"  wjien,  owing  to  the  existence  of  such  "tender 
hearted"  law  violators,  the  per  cent,  of  losses  shad  vastly  grown— 
finally  involving  millions  of  dollars.  As  a  substitute  for  the  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  Prof.  Charming  suggests  "Some  scheme  of  insur 
ance  against  slave  escapes  would  have  fully  protected  every  South 
ern  slave-owner  at  trifling  cost."5'  Mirdbile  dictii !  but  some  of  us 
can  never  understand  why  the  North  did  not  embark  upon  such  "a 
scheme."  The  loser  cannot  undertake  to  reimburse  himself  against 
his  own  loss;  it  would  have  been  a  most  preposterous  proposition 
for  the  South  to  have  attempted  "to  insure"  herself.  The  North 
was  doing  the  "charity  act,"  WHY  didn't  she  reimburse  the  South? 
WHY  ?  To  have  done  so  would  not  have  accomplished  the  aim  of 
her  designing  politicians;  it  would  not  have  checked  Southern  po 
litical  power ;  nor  would  it  have  added  a  single  United  States  Sena 
tor  to  the  Northern  roster.  Are  these  the  reasons?  But — would 
not  non-interference  have  been  more  simply?  As  the  Constitu 
tion  provided,  to  have  allowed  the  South  to  have  managed  their 
own  slave  matters,  would  not  have  involved  the  "insurerer"  in  such 
questions  as  determining  the  loss  and  its  cause,  its  value,  and  the 
one  hundred  other  questions  no  less  essential  and  equally  impossible 
of  solution.  Again  Prof.  Channing  has  remarked :  "Every  day  that 
slavery  existed,  the  South  grew  weaker  morally,  materially,  and 
politically."54  If  this  be  true,  Southern  slavery  was  shortly  to  see 
its  final  effacement.  Why  on  earth  did  not  the  North  pursue  the 
humane  course,  and  simply  let  the  South  die  this  natural  death? 

M3Students'  History  U.  S.,  463. 
M4Ib.,  462. 


248  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

So  generous  to  kill  one's  brother  and  then  turn  his  family  out  pen 
niless  simply  to  prevent  him  passing  off  of  inherent  and  mortal  in 
firmities! 

Notwithstanding  the  North,  excepting  the  insignificant  number 
of  five  votes,  initiated  the  national  slave  laws ;  and  so  long  as  slavery 
existed  in  any  of  those  States  they  had  local  fugitive  slave  laws  no 
less  rigorous  than  the  law  they  enacted  for  the  nation,  yet  some  ex 
cuse  must  be  found  for  the  opposition  to  the  several  enactments 
mainly  operative  in  behalf  of  the  Southern  master.  Prof.  Siebert 
justifies  them  thus :  "A  government,  whose  first  national  manifesto 
contained  the  exalted  principles  enshrined  in  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  stooping  to  the  task  of  slave  catching,  violated  all  the 
ideas  of  national  dignity,  decency,  and  consistency.  Many  persons, 
indeed,  justified  their  opposition  to  the  law  in  the  familiar  words : 
'We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created 
equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalien 
able  rights,  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness/ ''  Such  a  position  showed  either  a  warped  judgment  or 
ignorance  of  the  facts  at  home,  where  all  moral  movements  should 
first  operate.  These  moralists  should  first  have  turned  their  bat 
teries  against  those  of  their  own  section  who  had  deprived  more 
negroes  of  "life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  than  the 
whole  number  of  slaves  held  at  any  one  time  in  the  South.  When 
pushed  to  the  point,  no  one  reasonably  sane  among  them  would  have 
contended  that  "all  men  are  equal/'  The  vastly  greater  number  of 
those  who  were  engaged  in  enticing  or  aiding  slaves  to  escape  the 
South  would  not  have  allowed  the  negroes  whom  they  assisted  to 
have  approached  a  sister  or  daughter  on  the  subject  of  matrimony— 
to  the  girl  herself  it  would  have  been  a  most  serious  shock.  Why  ? 
Simply  because  all  the  North  then  stood  and  now  stands  on  the  high 
plane  of  natural  and  social  inequality.  No  section  of  this  country 
has  stood  more  firmly  on  the  negative  of  the  proposition  that  all 
men  a,re  their  "created"  equals  than  have  the  people  of  the  North,— 
the  only  thing  of  which  the  South  has  had  to  complain  has  been  the 
application  of  the  principle. 

Prof.  Siebert  further  says  that  those  among  them  "whose  re 
ligious  convictions  admitted  of  no  compromise/'  stood  upon  the 
Scriptural  injunction :  "Not  to  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  249 

that  had  escaped."545  But  the  South  could  not  reconcile  these  "re 
ligious  convictions"  with  the  WANT  of  Bible  sanction  for  helping 
and  inducing  the  servant  to  run  away  and  escape.  The  South  felt 
that  if  there  were  any  conflict  at  all  from  a  Bible  standpoint,  the 
New  Testament  certainly  was  the  safer  guide;  and  its  commands 
are  repeated:  "Servants,  be  obedient  unto  them  that  according  to 
the  flesh  are  your  masters."5"  "Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under 
the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor.'''54  "EX- 
HOET  servants  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  own  masters,  and  to  be 
well  pleasing  to  them  in  all  things;  not  gainsaying;  not  purloining, 
but  showing  all  good  fidelity."34  Here  are  positive  injunctions 
which  the  North  insisted  on  disobeying.  The  last  one  they  entirely 
reversed,  and  rather  than  exhort  the  servant  to  obey — and  the  Greek 
here  means  a  bond  servant,  just  such  as  was  the  Southern  slave — 
emissaries  and  literature  filled  the  South  EXHOETING  him  NOT 
to  obey.  Incendiary  literature  filled  his  hands,  and  no  effort  was 
spared  to  make  him  dangerous  to  his  master.  Suppose  each  side 
had  equal  Scripture  for  its  justification;' and  suppose  the  North 
had  all  the  argument  from  natural  justice  to  bear  out  the  claim 
that  they  did  not  want  to  aid  in  re-capturing  runaways.  Granting 
all  this,  where  lies  the  indictment  against  the  North?  It  is  by  no 
mea.ns  difficult  to  find.  Section  4  of  the  law  of  1793,  which,  and 
before  1850,  various  courts,  including  such  States  as  Massachusetts, 
Ohio,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  held  to  be  unquestionably  Con 
stitutional,  reads :  "And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  any  person  who 
shall  knowingly  and  willingly  obstruct  or  hinder  such  claimant,  his 
agent  or  attorney,  in  so  seizing  or  arresting  such  fugitive  from 
labor,  or  shall  rescue  'such  fugitive  from  such  claimant,  his  agent, 
or  attorney,  when  so  arrested  pursuant  to  the  authority  herein  given 
or  declared,  or  shall  harbor  or  conceal  such  person  after  notice  that 
he  or  she  was  a  fugitive  from  labor  as  aforesaid,  shall  for  either  of 
said  offences,  forfeit  and  pay  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars." 
Here  were  two  classes  of  prohibitions,  the  violation  of  either  of 
which  constituted  an  offence.  The  injunction  against  knowingly 
harboring  or  concealing  the  fugitive  is  both  plain  and  emphatic. 


545The  Underground  Railroad,  22  ;  Deut.  xxiii..  15,  16. 
M8Eph.  vi..  5. 
M71  Tim.  vi..  1. 
"82  Titus  ii.,  9,  10. 


250  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

So  far  as  this  provision  was  concerned,  there  was  neither  defect  nor 
difficulty.  To  violate  it  constituted  an  offence.  A  systematic  and 
concerted  offence  against  the  laws  of  a  country  by  any  one  or  num 
ber  of  its  citizens  is  either  criminal  in  fact,  or  revolutionary  or  rebel 
lious.  Xo  man  or  faction  of  men  with  "high  moral  standards" 
can  commit  crime  in  their  application;  if  an  act  be  a  crime  the 
"high  moral  standard"  under  which  it  was  done  is  shameful  hy 
pocrisy.  But  those  who  violated  this  law  insist  that  they  were  not 
criminals;  hence,  perforce  of  logic,  they  were  incipient  rebels. 
The  South  argues  that  since  these  rebellious  deeds  produced  greater 
evils  than  those  sought  to  be  corrected,  the  perpetrators  were  like 
wise  fanatic's.  Now,  let  me  briefly  inquire  to  what  extent  these 
depredations  were  carried,  who  were  responsible,  and  when  they  be 
gan. 

From  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  on  to  1860,  the 
number  of  negroes  who  made  frequent  trips  from  Canada,  and  who 
had  previously  escaped  the  South,  steadily  increased.  James  Red- 
path,  in  his  publication  in  1860  says,  "In  the  Canadian  provinces 
there  are  thousands  of  fugitive  slaves.  They  are  the  picked  men  of 
the  Southern  States.  Many  of  them  are  intelligent  and  rich;  and 
all  of  them  are  deadly  enemies  of  the  South.  Five  hundred  of 
them,  at  least,  annually  visit  the  Slave  States,  passing  from  Florida 
to  Harpers  Ferry.  .  .  .  They  have  carried  the  Underground  Rail 
road  and  the  Underground  Telegraph  into  nearly  every  Southern 
State.  Here,  obviously,  is  a  power  of  great  importance  for  a  Avar 
of  liberation/734  Other  writers  confirm  Red path's  estimate,  and 
leave  110  doubt  that  by  1860  this  large  number  had  really  grown 
much  larger  than  he  estimated  it  to  be.  This  numerous  class  was 
harbored,  fed,  and  furnished  money  by  the  North.630  "The  work 
done  by  these  fugitives  was  supplemented  by  the  cautious  dis 
semination  of  news  by  the  white  persons  who  went  into  the  South 
to  abduct  slaves  or  to  encourage  them  to  escape,  or  while  engaged 
there  in  legitimate  occupation's,  use  their  opportunities  to  pass  the 
helpful  word  or  to  afford  more  substantial  aid.  The  Rev.  Charles 
Fail-bank,  the  Rev.  Charles  T.  Torrey,  and  Dr.  Alexander  M.  Ross 


"'•'Public  Life  of  John  Brown,  229. 

5;i0Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Vol.  II.,  €2. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  251 

may  be  cited  as  notable  examples  of  this  class."51  "Notwithstand 
ing  the  distance,  the  number  of  escapes  from  the  interior  as  well  as 
from  the  border  slave  states  seems  to  have  been  sufficient  to  arouse 
the  suspicion  in  the  minds  of  the  Southerners  that  a  secret  organi 
zation  of  abolitionists  had  agents  in  the  South  at  work  running  off 
slaves.  This  suspicion  was  brought  to  light  during  the  trial  of 
Richard  Dillingham  in  Tennessee  in  1849."5:  On  the  unmistakable 
discovery  of  the  organized  theft  of  her  slave  property,  the  South  be 
gan  to  ask  for  protection  at  the  hands  of  the  Federal  government. 
As  a  result  the  fugitive  slave  law  of  1850  was  enacted.  Prof.  Sie- 
bert  is  certainly  correct  when  he  says,  "The  fugitive  slave  law  of 
1850  was  the  embodiment  of  Clay's  mighty  effort  to  stop  this 
evil."51 :  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  of  the  fact  that  the  depre 
dations  of  the  Xorth  forced  this  law  upon  the  country.  Instead  of 
aiding,  if  the  Xorth  had  discouraged  the  illegal  invasions  of  the 
South,  the  slave  law  of  1850  would  never  had  been  made,  and  the 
country  would  have  been  spared  a  great  upheaval.  Abolitionists 
made  the  necessity  for  the  protection  and  then  blamed  the  South 
for  her  unwillingness  to  be  robbed. 

By  no  means  are  we  to  understand  that  the  efforts  to  steal  slaves 
or  to  induce  them  to  run  away  were  spasmodic  or  far  between.  Xor 
was  the  effort  confined  to  one  locality.  Eegular  stations  were  early 
established  from  Boston  westward  to  Iowa  and  Kansas.  Says  Sie- 
bert,  "We  may  summarize  our  findings  in  regard  to  the  expansion 
of  the  underground  railroad,  then,  by  saying  that  it  had  grown  into 
a  widespread  institution'  before  the  year  1840,  and  in  several  states 
it  had  existed  in  previous  decades."5'  Systematic  organization  for 
the  aid  and  protection  of  fugitive  slaves  took  place  among  the  Quak 
ers  in  Pennsylvania  before  1786555  and  from  that  time,  and  con 
tinuously,  rapidly  spread  over  the  Xorth.  In  Connecticut  the  for 
cible  rescue  of  slaves  claimed  by  Southern  men  existed  through  or 
ganized  effort  from  1798556  down  to  the  Civil  War. 

The  secrecy  which  guarded  every  move  and  which  protected  the 


531Siebert,  The  Underground  Railroad,  28. 

552Ib.,  30. 

553Ann.  Report  Am.  Hist.  Asso.,  House  Docs.,  Vol.  LXII..  401. 

554The  Underground  Railroad,  43. 

M5Ann.  Rep.  Am.  Hist.  Asso..  1895,  House  Docs.,  Vol.  LXII.,  396. 

B56Ho\ve,  History  Ohio,  Cent.  Ed.,  Vol.  III.,  328. 


252  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

"institution"  against  discovery,  is  unsurpassed  for  completeness; 
and  it  was  owing  to  this  that  the  facts  for  many  years  could  not  be 
shown.  "Much  of  the  communication  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  was 
liad  in  guarded  language.  Special  signals,  whispered  conversa 
tions,  passwords,  messages  couched  in  figurative  phrases,  were  the 
common  modes  of  conveying  information.  .  .  .  Different  neighbor 
hoods  had  their  peculiar  combinations  of  knocks  or  raps  to  be  made 
upon  the  door  or  window  of  a  station  when  fugitives  were  awaiting 
admission/'557 

While  it  is  now  impossible  to  know  the  approximate  number  who 
availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  go  North,  yet  enough  can 
be  seen  to  prove  that  the  number  was  by  no  means  insignificant. 
"It  was  a  common  thing  for  a  station  to  entertain  a  company  of 
five  or  six,"  sometimes  twenty-eight  or  thirty.  At  times  a  single 
home  entertained  as  many  as  sixty  in  a  single  month.  In  numer 
ous  cases  the  negroes  thus  escaping  were  treated  as  though  they 
had  been  white  people,  eating,  for  instance,  at  the  table  with  the 
white  family.558  The  white  women  of  the  North  were  not  less  zeal 
ous  than  their  men.  These  women  furnished  food,  clothing,  "and 
in  many  places  conducted  sewing  circles"  for  the  benefit  of  the  es 
caping  negroes.  They  assisted  in  collecting  money  for  the  purposes 
of  hiring  conveyances,  and  in  many  cases  they  provided  closed  car 
riages.  Conveyances  of  all  kinds,  many  of  them  of  the  most  de 
ceptive  appearances;  steamboat  and  railroad  transportation, — in 
fact,  practically  every  conceivable  method  of  transportation,  "va 
rious,  ingenious,  and  deceptive  devices,"  Black  says,559  were  used. 
Powerful  railroad  systems,  such  as  the  Chicago,  Burlington  and 
Quincy,  the  Illinois  Central,  the  Cleveland  and  Pittsburg  Rail 
road,560  voluntarily  and  freely  lent  their  facilities.  Before  1817 
five  families  in  Ohio  had  forwarded  to  Canada  more  than  one  thou 
sand  fugitives.561  Now  and  then  a  single  individual  boasts  of  hav 
ing  forwarded  as  many  as  one  thousand,  and  some  one  thousand  five 
hundred.  Thos.  Garrett,  of  Wilmington,  Del.,  aided  two  thou- 


557Siebert,  The  Underground  Railroad,  56. 
558Ib.,  76-7. 

5MThe  Story  of  Ohio,  216. 

580Liberation  of  Fugitive  Slaves,  Ann.  Rep.   Am.   Hist.  Asso.,  1895,  Ho.  Docs., 
Vol.  LXIL,  396. 

M1Black,  The  Story  of  Ohio,  217. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  253 

sand  seven  hundred  runaways  in  escaping,  so  reliable  authority  tell 
us.  Northern  members  of  Congress  now  and  then  harbored  run 
away  slaves,  and  also  contributed  to  the  expense  fund  of  the  under 
ground.882  The  distinguished  journalists,  Thurlow  Weed,  Sidney 
Howard  Gay,  of  the  New  York  Tribune,,  and  other  Northern  news 
paper  men,  engaged  in  the  work  of  helping  negroes  escape  from  the 
Southern  owners.583 

Such  facts  go  to  show  the  great  extent  to  which  this  practice 
was  carried,  and  that  all  classes  lent  it  aid  and  support.  They  show 
that  the  charges  made  by  the  South  that  the  North  was  refusing  to 
respect  the  Constitution  or  to  obey  the  laws  of  Congress,  were  cor 
rect  ;  they  prove  her  claims  that  the  system  was  productive  of  enor 
mous  losses,  and  show  that  her  claims  of  injuries  were  not  over 
stated.  Most  serious  of  all,  these  losses,  inconveniences,  and  threat 
ened  dangers  all  helped  to  embitter  the  South,  and  to  awaken  a 
spirit  of  opposition  to  emancipation.  That  such  was  the  effect  is 
nothing  more  than  the  result  of  the  human  nature  just  as  common 
to  one  section  of  this  country  as  to  another.  If  the  North  herself 
had  been  free  from  wrongs  against  the  negro,  and  had  pursued  a 
course  of  fairness,  moderation,  and  brotherly  helpfulness,  I  am 
sure  that  Lincoln  would  never  have  seen  the  need  of  using  eman 
cipation  "as  a  war  measure." 

The  map  showing  the  different  routes  of  the  underground  sys 
tem  which  accompanies  Prof.  Siebert's  book,  is  very  interesting; 
and,  to  those  of  us  who  know  the  underground  railroad  only  as  his 
tory  or  tradition,  it  is  astonishing.  The  more  or  less  zigzag  red  lines 
leading  northward,  beginning  at  the  north  boundary  of  Maryland 
and  thence  westward  with  the  Ohio  river,  cover  the  country  in  hun 
dreds  of  longer  or  shorter  lines  from  the  New  England  States  to 
Topeka,  Kansas.  They  resemble  a  modern  and  complex  railroad 
system  to  which  various  other  branches  add  their  accommodations. 
Of  this  map  Prof.  Hart,  in  his  Introduction,  remarks,  "The  facts 
presented  in  the  brief  compass  of  the  map  would  have  been  of  im 
mense  value  also  to  the  leaders  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  in 
1861,  as  a  confirmation  of  their  argument  that  the  North  would 


582Siebert,   The  Underground   Railroad,   105-6. 
^Ib.,  108. 


254  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

not  perform  its  constitutional  duty  of  returning  the  fugitives."5' 
As  I  have  remarked,  and  as  Professor  Siebert  points  out,  the  loss 
to  the  South  can  never  be  definitely  known.  It  is  certain  that  hun 
dreds  of  thousands  escaped,  and  that  millions  of  dollars  were  lost 
by  Southerners.  Northern  men  falsified  the  census  in  the  two  im 
portant  years  of  1850  and  1860,  to  cover  up  the  facts  touching  these 
depredations.  These  two  acts  are  among  the  strongest  possible  ad 
missions  of  guilt.  They  either  changed  or  neglected  the  facts  of 
these  two  censuses  and  made  them  to  show  a  decrease  in  escapes  and 
abductions  of  'slaves  from  the  South,  whereas  the  truth  was  that 
they  had  been  on  the  increase.  Prof.  Siebert  says,  "The  concur 
rence  of  evidence  from  sources  other  than  census  reports,  and  the 
agreement  therewith  of  part  of  the  evidence  gathered  from  these 
reports  themselves,  constrain  one  to  say  that  those  who  compiled 
the  statistics  on  fugitive  slaves  did  not  secure  the  facts  in  full ;  and 
the  complaints  of  large  losses  sustained  by  slave-owners  through 
the  befriending  of  fugitive  slaves  by  Northern  people,  frequently 
made  by  Southern  representatives  in  Congress  and  by  the  South 
generally,  were  not  without  sufficient  foundation."365  And  again  he 
says,  "The  censuses  are  not  only  opposed  to  the  evidence,  they  are 
on  their  face  inadequate. "5e 

I  may  well  conclude  what  is  here  said  on  this  subject  in  Prof. 
Sieberfs  words :  "Can  it  be  thought  strange  that  the  disappearance 
week  by  week  and  month  by  month  of  valuable  slaves  over  the  un 
known  routes  of  the  underground  'system  should  have  produced 
wrath,  suspicion,  and  hostility  in  the  minds  of  people  who  could 
justly  claim  to  have  a  constitutional  guarantee,  the  laws  of  Con 
gress,  the  decisions  of  the  highest  courts  on  their  side?"5' 

With  this  brief  outline  of  the  working  of  the  underground  road, 
I  treat  it  no  further.  In  the  next  chapter  of  this  work,  we  shall 
see  somewhat  more  fully  the  methods  of  exciting  the  negroes  them 
selves  ;  and  also  something  of  tlie  efforts  of  the  emissaries  to  make 
the  slaves  a  source  of  danger  and  a  constant  dread  to  the  white 
people. 


564The  Underground  Railroad,  Itro.,  XI. 
585Ib.,  343. 

568Ib.,   342  ;  see  also  Ann.  Rept.   Am.  Hist.   Asso.,   1895,  Ho.  Docs.,  Vol.   LXIL, 
399. 

W7The  Underground  Railroad,  342. 


XII. 

EXACERBATION  AND  PROSCRIPTION. 

Hand  in  hand  with  these  "underground"  depredations  against 
what,  we  have  seen,  the  Constitution,  Congress,  and  representative 
Northerners  had  recognized  as  valuable,  legal  property  interests, 
went  the  dangerous  seditious  literature  from  the  Northern  press. 
This  literature  began  no  less  early  than  the  underground  road,  and, 
as  I  shall  show  in  the  concluding  part  of  what  I  have  to  say,  in 
creased  in  bitterness,  in  volume,  and  in  boldness,  as  the  war  period 
approached.  All  these  things  combined  to  drive  the  Southern  peo 
ple,  in  the  first  place,  to  abandon  efforts  for  emancipation;  in  the 
second,  to  pass  restrictive  laws  and  to  enact  anti-free  negro  meas 
ures. 

March  6,  1818,  United  States  Senator  Smith,  of  South  Carolina, 
gives  important  and  undisputed  testimony  as  to  the  early  injurious 
nature  of  abolition  prints  and  publications.  Just  how  long  before 
this  early  date  this  Northern  faction  had  resorted  to  this  method, 
we  do  not  certainly  know ;  but  it  had  by  that  time  become  notorious, 
and  its  beginning  must  have  been  near  in  time  to  the  slave-stealing 
"underground"  movement  which  had  quietly  and  effectively  become 
widespread  even  before  1818.  Said  Senator  Smith,  "But,  there  is 
another  perpetual  source  of  misrepresentation,  which  server  to  place 
it  [slavery]  in  an  odious  light  to  strangers;  it  is  the  number  of 
catch-penny  prints  and  pamphlets  that  are  published  by  persons 
who  know  no  more  about  the  condition  of  the  slaves  than  the  man 
in  the  moon.  Go  to  a  book  store,  and  you  meet  prints  hung  up  in 
some  conspicuous  place,  in  large  capital  letters,  'Portraiture  of  Do 
mestic  Slavery/  published  in  Philadelphia;  or,  'The  Horrors  of 
Slavery/  published  in  Cambridge,  and  sold  in  Boston.  These  pam 
phlets  contain  all  the  extraordinary  cases  collected  on  the  high  seas, 
in  the  West  Indies,  or  the  United  States,  together  with  such  in 
flammatory  speeches  of  travelers,  who  have  no  other  means  of  giv 
ing  to  their  writings  interest,  than  by  dealing  in  the  marvelous ;  or 
of  fanatic  preachers,  .  .  .  calculated  to  inflame  without  being  able 
to  instruct  .  .  ." 


256  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

The  speaker  then  gives  us  a  sample  of  the  doctrine  to  be  found 
in  this  class  of  publications.  While  abolition  petitions  were  being 
imposed  upon  Congress,  the  Senator  says  that  "some  unknown  hand 
laid  on  the  desk  of  each  Senator  a  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Horrors 
of  Slavery,  in  two  parts,  by  John  Kenrick;  sold  in  Boston,  price 
twenty  cents/  '•  Among  other  things  advocated  by  the  writer  of 
this  pamphlet  was  the  doctrine  that  the  Southern  slaves  be  eman 
cipated  and  colonized  in  Louisiana;  and  then  he  appealed  to  New 
England  commercialism  by  declaring  that  this  colony  would  afford 
a  fine  market  for  Northern  manufactures  I508 

Now,  watch  the  growth  of  this  movement  as  we  get  its  history 
from  the  highest  sources  in  both  sections  of  the  Union.  Note  that 
its  paramount  importance  in  interpreting  the  causes  of  secession^ 
is  that  it  was  no  mere  agitation,  or  process  of  education,  such  as  all 
parties  or  sects  may  properly  pursue,  but  it  wafe  born  of  the  spirit 
of  the  bloody  French  Revolution :  a  remorseless  disregard  for  law 
was  its  pivotal  point,  and  mob  violence  became  its  increasing  results. 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  gibbeted  and  bayoneted  the  mob  spirit  of 
France;  Civil  War  satiated  and  quieted  that  phase  of  abolition 
which,  as  the  history  of  its  progress  and  results  prove,  became  a  no 
less  dangerous  mania. 

Feb.,  1836,  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  J.  R. 
Ingersoll,  of  Pennsylvania,  admitted  the  existence  of  an  incendiary 
Northern  faction  "hostile  to  our  Southern  brethren,"  who,  aside 
from  their  "threats  of  attack  on  life,"  threatened  property  value 
the  character  of  which  was  communicated  by  the  Constitution, 
which  made  "it  a  duty  to  guard  it  from  violation."5*  The  burden 
of  his  position  was  that  this  movement  against  the  security  of 
the  South,  did  not  have  the  support  of  the  Northern  majority,  which 
fact  alone  brought  neither  relief  nor  consolation  to  the  besieged 
section. 

March  8,  1836,  Senator  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  in  an  address 
before  the  Senate,  said,  "I  am  opposed  to  slavery,  and  think  it  a 
great  evil  in  any  community;  and  I  believe  such  is  the  opinion  of 
most  of  the  reflecting  men  in  the  South,  viewing  the  question  in 
the  abstract,  without  reference  to  any  fixed  and  settled  condition 


M8Benton's  Abridgment  Cong.  Debates,   Vol.  VI.,  37-8. 
MOAppd.  Cong.  Globe,  24  Cong.,  1  sess.,  400-1. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  257 

of  society.  ...  I  have  said  that  I  thought  the  Abolitionists,  even 
those  moderate  and  rational  ones  whom  we  have  among  us  [in  Ohio], 
are  doing  evil  instead  of  good;  and  I  think  further,  if  they  could 
be  convinced  of  this,  they  would  cease  to  meet  and  petition  on  the 
subject.  They  do  evil,  in  the  first  place,  because  their  views  and 
wishes  cannot,  in  the  estimation  of  the  great  body  of  the  Southern 
people,  be  separated  from  those  mad  and  reckless  fanatics  who  at 
tempt,  by  various  devices,  to  excite  insurrection  among  the  slaves, 
and  bring  on  all  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war."570 

Feb.  15,  1836,  Senator  John  M.  Niles,  of  Connecticut,  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  said,  "Abolitionism  consists  of  two  kinds :  aboli 
tionism  of  the  old  school,  and  abolitionism  of  the  new  school.  The 
former  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  rational  wish  and  desire 
for  the  emancipation  of  all  persons  held  in  bondage,  and  a  dis 
position  to  advance  that  object  by  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  and 
the  progress  of  society.  Of  this  kind  of  Abolitionists  were  Frank 
lin  and  Jefferson;  and  there  are  many  such  at  the  North,  and  I 
presume  at  the  South.  .  .  . 

"Very  different  from  these  are  the  abolitionists  of  the  new 
school.  What  are  their  principles?  I  judge  of  them  from  their 
own  publications,  which  I  have  examined.  They  propose  an  im 
mediate  abolition  of  slavery,  and  against  the  will  of  those  inter 
ested  in  it.  They,  therefore,  propose  to  abolish  slavery  by  vio 
lence.  And  this  they  design  to  effect  in  communities  where  they 
do  not  reside,  and  have  no  interest^  or  sympathies  with  the  inhabi 
tants.  Whatever  may  be  their  intentions,  no  rational  person  can 
have  a  doubt  that  the  scheme  has  a  tendency  to  insurrection, 
massacre,  and  a  servile  war. 

"They  regard  slavery  as  a  theological  question.  They  say  it  is 
a  sin  and  a  moral  evil  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man,  and  ought  to 
be  eradicated  from  the  earth;  and  that  it  cannot  be  wrong  to 
remove  an  evil.  They  aver  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
consequences. 

"Can  men  be  sane  who  avow  principles  like  these,  who  are  pur 
suing  an  object  having  the  most  important  bearing  on  the  vital 
interests  of  society,  which  expose  it  to  all  the  horrors  of  insur 
rection,  massacre,  and  servile  war,  and  yet  declare  that  they  have 

•TtApp.  Cong.  Globe,  24  Cong.,  1  sess.,  220. 
17 


258  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

nothing  to  do  with  the  consequences  of  their  own  acts?  To  call 
such  men  fanatics  is  too  mild  a  term.  I  have  no  concern  with 
their  motives,  but  like  all  other  moral  agents,  they  must  be  held  re 
sponsible  for  the  natural  and  obvious  consequences  of  their  own 
acts.  This  principle,  true  in  morals,  is  no  less  so  in  politics.  Is 
it  to  be  wondered  at  that  a  scheme,  based  on  a  total  recklessness 
of  consequences,  should  have  excited  the  almost  universal  indig 
nation  of  an  intelligent  and  moral  people?  .  .  .  But  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  there  is  one  part  of  this  scheme  of  Aboli 
tion  which  ha's  been  kept  more  out  of  sight — that  is,  amalgama 
tion.  Their  first  movements  appear  to  have  been  directed  to  this 
object/7571 

Such  is  the  praof  of  the  existence  of  the  danger — and  the  evi 
dence,  too,  of  men  who  were  not  in  sympathy  with  slavery,  and 
whose  objects  were  to  prove  that  this  aggression  was  the  work  of  a 
•email  Northern  minority.  To  this  end  Senator  Niles  presented  a 
number  of  resolutions  passed  by  various  Northern  gatherings,  at 
one  of  which  the  governor  of  Connecticut  presided.  Here  are  rep 
resentative  examples : 

"Resolved,  That  in  view  of  these  obvious  principles,  it  is  a  vio 
lation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  for  citizens  of  one  State  to 
enter  into  combinations  (to  give  more  energy  to  their  efforts)  for 
the  avowed  object  of  effecting  a  change  in  the  institutions,  laws, 
or  social  relations  of  the  people  of  other  States,  who,  as  regards 
all  such  matters,  are  as  independent  communities  as  they  would 
have  been  had  they  not  entered  into  the  Confederacy. 

"Resolved,  That  the  conduct  of  the  Abolition  societies,  in  pub 
lishing  and  distributing  in  the  slave-holding  States  in  violation 
of  their  laws,  newspapers,  and  pamphlets,  the  natural  and  obvious 
tendency  of  which  is  to  excite  insubordination  and  insurrection 
among  the  slaves,  and  expose  the  country  to  all  the  horrors  of  a 
servile  war,  is  highly  censurable,  and  cannot  fail  of  meeting  the 
reprobation  of  every  friend  of  his  country."51 

But  protests  of  the  North  against  the  mad,  reckless,  and  dan 
gerous  movement  rapidly  gathering  in  their  midst,  did  not  stop 
it;  it  swept  on  until  it  had  become  so  bold  and  powerful  that 


5T1App.  Cong.  Globe,  24  Cong.,  1  sess.,  115-124. 
BT1App.  Cong.  Globe,  24  Cong.,  1  sess.,  115-125. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  259 

armed,  organized  rebellion  laid  waste  our  middle  West;  it  finally 
paralyzed  the  arm  of  the  nation's  executive;  it  brought  Congres 
sional  power  not  only  under  its  dominion,  but  made  it  armed 
sedition's  boldest  champion. 

Let  us  now  go  back  to  the  South  and  see  the  effect  upon  both 
classes  of  her  people,  and  the  conditions  which  the  Northern  move 
ment  produced. 

Contemporary  with  the  decrease  of  the  emancipation  efforts  in 
the  South,  we  find  the  governors  of  the  several  Southern  States 
calling  attention  to  the  results  in  the-  South  of  Northern  aboli 
tion  efforts;  we  find  legislatures  enacting  measures  for  protection 
or  restraint;  we  find  the  people  gathering  in  mass-meetings  de 
claring  that  danger  existed  and  that  its  increase  was  threatened 
through  the  abolition  efforts  of  the  North.  In  1826  Gov.  Johnson 
in  his  message  to  the  legislature  of  Louisiana  called  the  attention 
of  that  body  to  the  "unconstitutional  and  dangerous,"  using  his 
words,  attitude  of  the  abolition  North  towards  Southern  slavery, 
and  pointed  out  that  the  methods  used  in  the  South  by  Northern 
abolitionists  did  not  "subserve  the  interests  of  an  enlightened 
philanthropy,"  because  those  methods  incited  the  slaves  to  acts 
"'which  wrould  necessarily  bring  down  upon  them  calamities  far 
greater  than  any  which"  existed.373  This  was  one  year  before  the 
date  (1827)  which  Mr.  Dunn,  a  Northern  historian,  fixes  for  the 
beginning  of  the  change  in  the  Southern  attitude  toward  slaves.57* 
Much  earlier  (1786)  than  this  we  saw  the  underground  movement 
beginning  to  gather  momentum  and  extensiveness.578  Follow  the 
history,  and  as  abolition  efforts  increase  in  extent,  variety,  and  ef 
fectiveness,  the  South  is  driven  from  one  counter,  defensive,  move 
to  another  in  an  effort  to  thwart  dangerous  aggressions.  It  was  not 
until  1830  that  Virginia, — which  is  generally  taken  as  a  representa 
tive  of  that  period  of  Southern  legislation, — pafesed  her  restrictive 
laws,  and  forbade  free  negroes  to  meet  to  learn  to  read  and  write, 
and  forbidding  white  persons  to  assemble  with  such  negroes. 
Similar  legislation,  applicable  also  to  slaves,  was  not  pas'sed  in  Ala 
bama  until  1832.576  Up  to  this  late  period  no  State  had  been  more 


573Chas.  Gayarre,  History  Louisiana,  Vol.  IV.,  651. 
574History  Indiana,  190. 
575House  Docs.,  Vol.  LXIL,  396. 
*76Kent's  Com.,  Vol.  II.,  253,  13th  ed. 


260  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

liberal  to  manumitted  negroes  than  Virginia,  as  was  seen  from  an 
early  legislative  provision  in  their  favor  quoted  elsewhere.  From 
the  earliest  time  slaves  could  be  set  free  and  live  among  the  whites 
and  acquire  property  in  Tennessee;  but  in  1831,  she,  too,  found  it 
necessary  to  her  peace  and  security,  to  require  freed  negroes  to  be 
removed  beyond  the  State.577 

Concerning  the  causes  of  the  restrictive  laws  of  the  South, 
James  Kent,  among  the  first  of  America's  great  lawyer's,  and  New 
York's  greatest  commentator,  writing  about  the  time  they  were 
being  placed  upon  the  statute  books,  said,  "These  several  penal 
restrictions  must  have  proceeded  from  the  strong  and  fearful 
apprehension  that  the  kind  of  knowledge  and  instruction  which  are 
interdicted,  would  greatly  increase  the  means,  capacity,  and  ten 
dency  of  slaves  to  combine  for  purposes  of  mischief  and  insurrec 
tion.  The  great  principle  of  self-protection/'  continues  this  great 
Northern  lawyer,  "doubtless  demands,  on  the  part  of  the  white 
population  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  such  combustible  materials, 
unceasing  vigilance  and  firmness,  as  well  as  uniform  kindness  and 
humanity.  The  evils  of  domestic  slavery  are  inevitable,  but  the 
responsibility  does  not  rest  upon  the  present  generation,  to  whom 
the  institution  descended  by  inheritance.  .  .  ""' 

Moved  by  some  open  outburst  of  slaves  against  the  whites,  popu 
lar  assemblies  now  and  then  for  years  called  unmistakable  attention 
to  the  presence  of  the  emissary  and  his  work.  For  instance,  one  of 
the  strongest  expressions  of  Southern  feeling  is  that  which  Greeley 
»ays  was  put  into  the  form  of  a  resolution  at  Clinton,  Mississippi, 
September  5,  1833 : 

"Besolved,  That  it  is  our  decided  opinion  that  any  individual 
who  dares  to  circulate,  with  a  view  to  effectuate  the  designs  of  the 
Abolitionists,  or  any  of  the  incendiary  tracts  or  newspapers  now  in 
the  course  of  transmission  to  this  country,  is  honestly  worthy,  in 
the  sight  of  God  and  man,  of  immediate  death;  and  we  doubt  not 
that  such  would  be  the  punishment  of  any  such  offender  in  any 
part  of  the  state  of  Mississippi  where  he  may  be  found/' 

Before  1835  the  exciting  seditious  literature  had  become  so  pre 
valent  and  so  wide  in  its  circulation,  that  sterling  old  President 


258. 
578Ib.,  254. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  261 

Jackson,  who  stood  for  the  Union  like  no  other  man  in  America, 
found  it  necessary  to  address  Congress  and  call  their  attention  to 
"emissaries  from  foreign  parts  who  have  interfered  in  this  matter" 
of  Southern  emancipation,  as  he  mildly  put  it;  and  with  reference 
to  incendiary  Northern  literature  he  said,  "I  must  invite  your 
attention  to  the  painful  excitement  produced  in  the  South  by 
attempts  to  circulate  through  the  mails  inflammatory  appeals 
addressed  to  the  passions  of  the  slaves,  in  prints  and  various  sorts 
of  publications,  calculated  to  stimulate  them  to  insurrection  and 
to  produce  all  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war."51  A  sack  full  of  this 
literature  at  one  time  in  this  same  year  was  discovered  in  the  post- 
office  at  Charleston,  S.  C.580 

But  the  abolitionists  doubled  their  energy,  and  by  the  next  year, 
1836,  the  attempts  to  raise  the  negroes  had  reached  all  parts  of 
every  slave  State.  So  dangerous  had  they  become  that  Gov.  White, 
of  Louisiana,  called  the  attention  of  his  legislature  to  the  existence 
of  the  organizations  that  "printed  and  scattered  'collection  of  hor 
rors  and  atrocities'  which  had  no  other  reality  than  what  was  given 
to  them  by  the  heated  brains  of  their  inventors."  The  governor 
laid  before  the  legislature  a  collection  of  these  documents  and  fur 
ther  said,  "They  will  suffice  to  give  you  a  just  idea  of  the  kind  of 
war  which  is  prepared  in  the  bosom  of  our  own  country,  against 
our  peace,  our  fortunes,  our  lives,  and  those  of  our  children."" 

Very  much  of  the  most  objectionable  literature  circulated 
throughout  the  South,  especially  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  aboli 
tion  agitation,  is  preserved  only  by  description.  A  few  inflamma 
tory  prints  are  yet  extant,  but  most  of  the  circular  matter,  pam 
phlets,  and  papers  are  gone.  We  may  get  some  idea  of  what  was 
being  done  from  the  report  of  the  American  Anti- Slavery  Society 
in  1837.  The  report  shows  that  from  the  Xew  York  office  alone, 
this  organization  published  and  distributed  yearly  over  half  a  mil 
lion  copies  of  the  following : — 

Bound  volumes 7,877 

Tracts  and  pamphlets 47,250 

Circulars,   etc., 4,100 


'"Compilation  Mess,  and  Docs..  Vol.  III.,  175  :  Message  Dec.  7,  1835. 
58°Burgess,  The  Middle  Period,  271. 
581Gayarre,  History  Louisiana,  Vol.  IV.,  657. 


262  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

"Prints"    10,490 

AntirSlavery   Mag 9,000 

Slaves'  Friend 131,050 

Human  Rights 189,400 

Emancipator   217,167 

Mr.  Burney,  president  of  this  society,  says,  "Other  publications 
of  similar  charactei  are  issued  by  state  societies  or  individuals." 
While  the  membership  was  not  large  in  1833,  yet  there  were  sev 
eral  of  these  State  organizations  busy  scattering  their  literature, 
and  so  we  may  see  that  mil1  ions  of  pamphlets,  "prints,"  etc.,  went 
throughout  the  country. 

We  get  some  idea  of  this  vast  literary  production,  when  we  are 
told  by  Mr.  Burney  that  the  Slaves'  Friend  is  "a  small  monthly 
tract,  of  neat  appearance,  intended  principally  for  children  and 
young  persons,  [and]  ...  is  replete  with  facts  relating  to  slavery, 
and  with  the  accounts  of  hair-breadth  escapes  of  slaves  from  their 
masters  and  pursuers  that  rarely  fail  to  impart  the  most  thrilling 
interest  to  its  little  readers."  He  says  these  were  distributed  both 
in  "the  free  and  the  slave  states."  Of  course,  this  "neat  little 
monthly"  was  read  to  the  slaves  at  every  opportunity.  It  was 
"replete" — full — of  "hair-breadth  escapes."  They  were  always 
ESCAPES,  thus  imbuing  the  mind  with  the  idea  that  the  run 
away  ALWAYS  escaped.  This  monthly  was  the  product  of  shrewd 
brains;  it  purported  to  be  for  children;  the  simple-minded  slave 
could  be  more  easily  impressed  with  the  idea  that  along  the  path 
of  escape  thousands  of  friends  awaited  his  coming,  and  stood 
ready  to  defend  him  with  their  lives  if  he  would  but  start ;  the 
story  had  a  suffering  negro,  full  of  bruises  and  uttering  wails  of 
anguish,  fleeing  from  some  scowling  master  with  whip  and  brand 
ing  irons,  thus  leaving  the  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  white 
children  of  the  North  that  such  things  were  really  characteristic  of 
Southern  slavery.  Just  such  publications  did  more  to  give  a  false 
impression  with  reference  to  the  slave's  condition  than  all  the  ab 
stract  books  published  on  the  subject.  The  "prints"  were  pictures, 
always  overdrawn  and  misleading,  such  as  "views  of  slavery  in  the 
South — a  lynch  court  in  the  slave  States — the  scourging  of  Mr. 
Dresser  by  a  vigilance  committee  in  the  public  square  in  Nash- 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  263 

ville — the  plundering  of  the  postoffice  in  Charleston,  South  Caro 
lina,  and  the  conflagration  of  part  of  its  contents,  etc.,  etc."5' 
Just  what  the  "etc.,  etc."  were,  Mr.  Burney  failed  to  tell.  But  he 
tells  enough  to  show  the  inflammatory  character  of  the  produc 
tions.  Dresser  was  represented  as  a  martyr,  being  scourged  for 
doing  good,  when  anything  the  reverse  was  true ;  and  the  Southern 
people  were  represented  as  more  lawless  than  other  sections, — as 
people  who  resorted  to  "lynch  justice"  and  brutal  intimidation. 

January  1,  1831,  The  Liberator,  William  Lloyd  Garrison's  paper, 
one  of  the  most  uncompromising  abolitionists  the  North  ever  pro 
duced,  has  an  article  headed  "Walker's  Pamphlet,"  under  which 
it  editorially  says,  "The  Legislature  of  North  Carolina  has  lately 
been  sitting  with  closed  doors,  in  consequence  of  a  message  from 
the  Governor  relative  to  the  above  pamphlet.  The  South  may  rea 
sonably  be  alarmed  at  the  circulation  of  Mr.  Walker's  Appeal ;  for 
a  better  promoter  of  insurrection  was  never  sent  forth  to  an  op 
pressed  people.  In  a  future  number,  we  propose  to  examine  it,  as 
also  various  editorial  comments  thereon — it  being  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  productions  of  the  age.  We  have  already  publicly  dep 
recated  its  spirit."5' 

In  proof  of  the  existence  and  circulation  of  such  insurrectionary 
literature,  and  of  various  abolition  productions,  all  of  which  tended 
in  the  same  direction  by  the  very  force  of  agitation,  I  might  quote 
numerous  other  writers,  but  I  shall  place  in  evidence  at  this  time 
but  one  more.  J.  W.  Moore,  a  prominent  New  York  authority, 
whose  sympathies  are  entirely  with  the  North,  says,  "The  aboli 
tion  movement  was  vigorously  prosecuted  by  means  of  newspapers, 
pamphlets,  book's,  lectures,  etc.,  and  was  continued  without  ces 
sation."5" 

There  is  perhaps  not  a  reputable  historian  who  would  insist  that 
in  the  early  days  Southern  slavery  could  have  been  at  once  de 
stroyed.  All  agree  with  President  Lincoln  when,  speaking  of 
slavery  at  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  he  said,  "They  found 
slavery  among  them,  and  they  left  it  among  them  because  of  the 
difficulty — the  absolute  impossibility — of  its  immediate  removal."58 

582Anti- Slavery  Examiner,  No.  8.  10,  23. 

583Old  South   (Meeting  House)   Leaflet,  Boston,  Mass.,  Vol.  IV.,  20. 

584The  American  Cong.,  336. 

585Nicholay  and  Hay,  Lincoln,  Comp.  Works,  Vol.  I.,  505. 


264  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

This  opinion  he  never  changed.""  When  did  the  time  for  its 
removal  arise?  In  answer  to  this  question,  I  submit  that,  when 
ever  it  would  have  been,  long  before  that  time  caine,  abolitionists — 
beginning  with  their  agitation  in  the  first  Congress — had  produced 
conditions  which  rendered  emancipation  in  the  South  still  less 
possible.  To  show  this  I  am  endeavoring  to  place  cause  and  effect 
in  their  proper  historical  light.  Not  alone  had  the  agitators  a 
dangerous  effect  upon  the  slaves,  but  by  their  unrelenting  scourge 
of  the  slaveholder  for  not  doing  immediately  what  all  sober,  sane 
men  admitted  could  not  be  done  at  once,  every  sense  of  resentment 
characteristic  of  the  best  American  manhood  had  been  put  in  an 
indignant  and  antagonistic  attitude.  For  as  all  admit,  and  as 
Moore  says,  from  tot  to  last  abolitionists  "demanded  the  im 
mediate  abolition  of  slavery."587 

So  much  for  the  anti-slavery  literature  which, — creative  of  dan 
gerous  conditions, — was  prior  to  and  hence  drove  the  South  to 
inhibit.! ve  legislation.  Later  we  shall  see  the  aspect  of  this  litera 
ture  just  before  the  great  frown,  which  it  had  excited,  broke  into 
the  demoniacal  laughter  of  frateinal  war. 

Slaveholders  could  not  consider  the  mere  question  of  emancipa 
tion.  There  was  a  consideration  of  vastly  greater  importance;  and 
that  was  as  to  what  should  be  done  with  these  freedmen.  It  was 
but  natural  that  the  Southerner  looked  to  the  North  where  the 
process  of  emancipation  years  before  had  begun.  In  determining 
when  he  might  safely  inaugurate  a  plan  of  ridding  himself  of  what 
he  admitted  an  undesirable  condition,  naturally  he  scrutinized  the 
attitude  of  his  Northern  brothers  toward  free  negroes  and  mulat- 
toes.  What  did  he  find?  He  saw  (1)  that  during  their  slavery 
days  the  Northern  people  had  restrictive  laws  no  less  rigorous  than 
those  of  the  South;  (2)  he  saw  that  during  all  of  her  history  the 
people  of  the  North  had  shown  less  enlightened  and  less  unselfish 
consideration  for  the  negro  than  had  the  Southern  people;  (3)  he 
was  staggered  by  the  fact  that  the  very  people  who  fought  for  the 
emancipation  of  the  Southern  slave  with  so  much  zeal,  found  the 
free  negro  unfit  for  the  exerci'se  of  citizenship, — and  more  disap 
pointing  yet,  he  found  his  Northern  pseudo-philanthropists  generally 

B8eBell's  Lincoln,  114,  132. 
58TThe  Am.  Cong.,  336. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  265 

uncompromisingly  unwilling  that  free  negroes  should  even  dwell  in 
their  States.  Naturally  the  Southerner  argued  that  if  Northern 
States  found  anti-negro  legislation  necessary,  and  the  free  negro 
dangerous,  a  less  desirable  and  more  dangerous  condition  would 
result  in  the  South  if  her  millions  should  be  freed  in  their  then 
condition.  It  may  be  well  to  caution  the  young  reader  to  keep  in 
mind  that  the  negro  of  the  agitation  period  was  not  the  negro  as 
we  know  him  to-day.  If  Northern  States,  Pennsylvania  for  in 
stance,  which  forbade  more  than  four  slaves  to  assemble,  and  which 
forbade  them  to  carry  arms/88  where  her  slave  population  was  never 
large,  and  at  a  time  when  white  instigators  to  insurrection  were 
unknown  to  her,  needed  such  regulations,  it  is  rather  a  wonder, 
than  otherwise,  that  the  South  withstood  the  pressure  of  her  dense 
slave  population  so  long.  Similar  laws  in  the  South  did  not  exist 
until  long  after  Northern  abolitionists  had  made  them  necessary. 
The  question  of  emancipation  was  one  wholly  for  each  State,  so 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  so  declared  repeatedly  by  Congress, 
and  so  acknowledged  by  Northern  leader's.  Southern  slavery  was  no 
concern  of  the  North,  and  the  effort  to  force  upon  the  Southern 
States  conditions  which  almost  the  entire  North  itself  spurned,  was 
an  offered  indignity  which  has  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  the 
world. 

Since  it  is  a  too  common  practice  for  a  certain  school  of  writers 
to  catalogue  what  they  call  the  "black  laws"  of  the  South;  and  that, 
too,  without  showing  their  long  prior  prototypes  of  the  North  and 
those  of  the  new  Territories  and  States  where  New  England  influ 
ences  were  strong,  it  will  be  necessary  to  see  something  more  than 
I  have  elsewhere  given  of  this  history  in  the  several  States.  This 
will  help  us  to  determine  how  far  the  history  of  freedom  in  the 
North  indicated  that  the  people  of  the  South  would  be  the  better 
with  their  millions  of  slaves  turned  into  freemen.  It  will  also  help 
us  to  determine  whether  the  Northern  faction  which  finally  and  ac 
cidentally  became  the  party  of  emancipation,  were  really  the  unself 
ish  friends  of  the  free  negro.  In  the  eyes  of  the  world,  since  the 
North  was  mainly  the  home  of  that  party,  that  section,  has  credit 
for  having  taken  an  early  enlightened  moral  stand  for  oppressed 
humanity;  it  is  lauded  as  the  champion  of  freedom;  it  is  crowned 


.  Hist.  Soc.  Perm.,  Vol.  I.,  385. 


266  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

as  the  regal  knight  of  the  oppressed;  it  has  gone  forth  under  the 
color  of  unselfish  battle  for  a  degraded  race  as  though  moved  by 
the  dictates  of  a  Christian  conscience.  How  much  of  error,  how 
much  of  falsehood  and  hypocrisy,  crouch  under  these  claims,  even 
a  brief  review  of  anti-negro  legislation  cannot  fail  to  reveal. 

In  Connecticut,  in  1833,  Chief-Justice  Doggett  held  that  free 
negroes  were  not  citizens  within  the  meaning  of  that  term  as  used 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  legislature  of  the 
same  State  enacted  a  law  making  it  a  penal  offence  to  set  up  or  es 
tablish  any  school  or  literary  institution  for  colored  persons  not  in 
habitants  of  the  State;  and  any  negro  coming  to  the  State  for  in 
struction  could  be  forcibly  removed  therefrom.  This  was  only  two 
years  after  Virginia,  for  instance,  had  passed  a  law  regulating  the 
teaching  of  negroes.  If  it  was  dangerous  to  teach  free  negroes  in 
Connecticut,  which  had  no  slave  population  to  incite,  who  will  say 
that  Virginia's  statute  was  not  a  necessity,  surrounded  as  she  was 
by  great  numbers  of  slaves  in  the  midst  of  whom  were  Northern 
white  men  clamoring  to  fill  their  minds  with  deeds  of  violence? 

About  the  same  time  an  able  Pennsylvania  authority  held  that 
the  negro  was  not  a  citizen;  and  in  that  State  as  late  as  1837 
negroes  and  mulattoes  were  denied  the  right  of  suffrage.689  In 
nearly  all  the  Northern  States,  declares  Chancellor  Kent,  who 
wrote  some  years  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  the  negro  is  an  object  of 
social  and  legal  restraints. 

The  Ohio  school  law  of  1829,  enacted  by  her  legislature,  declared 
that  the  public  school  system  was  for  "white  youth"  only,  and  thus 
the  negro  was  denied  the  right  to  be  taught.  Nor  was  this  the  re 
sult  of  her  Southern  immigrants.  Charles  Moore,  than  whom  none 
can  speak  with  more  authority,  writing  in  1901,  said,  "On  the  Mus- 
kingum  and  on  Lake  Erie  New  England  colonies  had  been  planted 
under  such  conditions  and  with  such  strength  as  to  make  New  Eng 
land  ideas  the  dominant  force  throughout  Ohio  even  to  this  day."5£ 

Of  the  newer  States  where  New  England  ideas  and  policy  pre 
vailed,  Iowa  refused,  from  the  ratification  of  her  first  constitution, 
to  allow  negroes  the  elective  franchise,  or  to  treat  them  as  entitled 
even  to  representation ,591  The  constitution  of  Michigan,  ratified  in 

WG  Watts,  553. 

590The  Northwest  Under  Three  Flags,  384. 

B91Hough,   Am.  Consts  ,  Vol.   III.,  368. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  267 

1835,  forbade  the  enfranchisement  of  negroes;5112  and  by  popular 
vote  in,  1850  she  again  refused  the  right  of  suffrage  to  the  negro.5"3 
Minnesota's  first  constitution  made  a  similar  discrimination  in 
favor  of  white  men,  and  by  popular  vote  in  1855,  1865,  and  1867 
the  people  declared  the  negro  unfit  for  the  exercise  of  citizenship ; 
and  the  disability,  under  which  they  place  him,  was  not  removed 
until  1868.594  By  the  constitution  of  Nebraska  only  white  citizens 
could  vote,  or  "white  persons  of  foreign  birth,"  when  naturalized.595 

Connecticut  by  an  early  constitutional  provision  made  and  for 
many  years  continued  a  similar  provision.596  Neither  did  she  make 
any  effort  for  the  education  or  betterment  of  the  negroes.  New  Jer 
sey's  constitution  of  1844  placed  the  elective  franchise  in  the  hands 
of  the  whites  alone;  and  not  until  1875  were  negroes  placed  upon 
political  equality  with  the  whites  in  that  State.587  In  1821  New 
York  placed  a  suffrage  provision  in  her  constitution  which  practi 
cally  barred  all  negroes  of  suffrage  rights.  Before  a  negro  could 
exercise  the  elective  franchise  she  required  him  to  own  in  his  own 
right  $250  worth  of  land,  and  if  not  born  in  the  State,  he  must  have 
resided  there  for  three  years.  This  did  not  apply  to  white  people. 
The  question  of  equal  suffrage  to  colored  people  was  submitted  to 
the  people  in  1846,  again  in  1860,  and  again  in  1868,  and  each  time 
refused  by  large  majorities.598 

Even  in  1864,  when  Northern  people,  or  those  of  Northern 
descent,  came  to  establish  a  State  constitution  for  Nevada,  they 
provided  that  "white  male  citizens,"  not  convicted  of  treason  or 
felony,  or  who  had  not  "voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  United 
States,  or  held  civil  or  military  office  under  the  so-called  Confed 
erate  States,  or  either  of  them,"  could  exercise  the  right  of  Ameri 
can  citizenship.589  Yet  in  her  Declaration  of  Eights  she  declares  "all 
men  are  by  nature  free  and  equal."6'  The  constitution  of  no  State 
shows  more  antipathy  to  the  Southern  slaveholder  than  this  of  Ne- 


592U.  S.  Ch.  and  Consts.,  984. 

593Ib.,  1016. 

594Hough.  Am.  Consts.,  Vol.  I.,  723. 

5OTIb.,  829. 

5MU.  S.  Ch.  and  Consts.,  2G3. 

597Ib.,  1315,  1325. 

598Ib.,  1353. 

599Ib.,  853. 

"ooib.,  850. 


268  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

vada,  or  manifests  more  plainly  the  Northern  prejudice  against  the 
Southern  people.  ( See  Art.  XV. )  Why  ?  Because  the  North  said 
the  South  should  have  given  negroes  equal  rights.  But  when  it 
came  to  a  question  affecting  their  own  interests,  these  same  would- 
be-exemplars  made  assurance  doubly  sure  and  made  it  impossible 
not  only  for  a  negro  to  vote,  but  to  hold  any  office  whatever— not 
even  oversee  a  public  road.601  I  have  several  times  called  attention 
to  the  same  proscriptions  in  favor  of  New  England  settlers  in  Kan 
sas,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Illinois ;  all  of  which  were  placed  upon  the 
statute  books  or  incorporated  in  the  fundamental  laws  of  those 
respective  States  early  in  the  first  of  the  last  century.  Even  the 
more  recent  years  of  legislation  touching  the  unfortunate  negro  do 
not  develop  for  the  North  any  higher  moral  or  civic  consideration. 
Among  the  acts  of  the  general  assembly  of  Illinois,  1855-'56,  we 
find: 

"If  any  negro  or  mulatto,  bond  or  free,  shall  come  into  this  State 
and  remain  ten  days,  with  the  evident  intention  of  residing  in  the 
same,  every  such  negro  or  mulatto  shall  be  guilty  of  a  high  misde 
meanor,  and  for  the  first  offence  shall  be  fined  the  sum  of  fifty  dol 
lars,  to  be  recovered  before  any  justice  of  the  peace,  in  the  county 
where  said  negro  or  mulatto  may  be  found.  ...  If  said  negro  or 
mulatto  shall  be  found  guilty,  and  the  fine  assessed  be  not  paid 
forthwith  .  .  .  said  justice  shall  advertise  said  negro  or  mulatto  .  .  . 
for  ten  days,  and  on  the  day  and  at  the  place  mentioned  in  said  ad 
vertisement,  the  said  justice  shall  at  PUBLIC  AUCTION  proceed 
to  SELL  said  negro  or  mulatto  to  any  person  who  will  pay  said 
fine  and  costs."6'  Shade  of  Lincoln !  And  is  this  the  "awakened" 
conscience  of  Illinois?  Dragged  from  his  native  home  in  Africa, 
the  negro  is  denied  a  resting  place  and  hath  not  where  to  lay  his 
weary  head  in  the  enlightened  days  of  1855-'56  in  the  great  State 
of  Illinois.  Concerning  the  same  or  a  similar  law  which  was  in 
force  in  Illinois  in  1853,  Smith  says,  ".  .  .  this  law  was  unequaled 
for  the  anti-negro  sentiment  displayed."  This  law  was  sanctioned, 
too,  by  a  large  majority  of  the  popular  vote.  "The  prosecutor  or 
informer  was  to  have  one-half  of  the  money,  the  remainder  was  to 


•"Ib..  874. 

°°2Carey,  The  Slave  Trade,  Domestic  and  Foreign,   375    (1856)  ;  Hinsdale,  The 


Old  Northwest,  112,  344. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  269 

be  used  for  the  deserving  poor.""03  "Mr.  Judd,  Senator  from  Cook 
and  Lake  counties,  .  .  .  moved  to  amend  the  title  to  read,  'An  act  to 
establish  slavery  in  this  State/  "  in  derision  of  the  supporters  of 
the  measure.  Illinois  forgot  that  she  had  once  employed  negro 
slaves,  and  that  many  of  her  public  buildings  were  built  by  slave 
labor,  which  had  been  hired  from  the  master  by  the  State  under  a 
special  enactment  of  her  legislature.60*  Michigan,  by  her  consti 
tution  of  1850,  sanctioned  and  ratified  by  popular  vote,  refused  the 
negro  the  right  of  citizenship.  By  statute  she  had  forbidden  negroes 
to  reside  in  the  State  since  April  13,  1S27.003  In  1851  Indiana  held 
a  convention  to  revise  her  constiutution.  In  this  convention  a 
''motion  that  negroes  vote  at  all  elections  was  rejected  by  122  to  1, 
receiving  only  the  support  of  the  one  Free  Soiler."  This  same 
constitution  made  all  contracts  with  negroes  or  mulattoes  void. 
And  persons  encouraging  negroes  to  remain  in  the  State  were  to 
be  fined;  and  all  negroes  or  mulattoes  were  forbidden  to  come  into 
the  State.  "This  article  was  submitted  separately  to  the  people; 
and  Indiana  in  the  autumn  of  1851  signalized  itself  by  decreeing 
negro  exclusion  by  an  enormous  majority."6'  About  the  same  time 
Ohio  revised  her  constitution,  and  by  it  negroes  were  again  denied 
the  right  to  vote,  to  which  restriction  there  was  scarcely  no  opposi 
tion  in  the  entire  State. 

The  first  State  in  the  Union  to  expel  negroes  from  her  borders 
by  either  legislation  or  fundamental  law,  was  Massachusetts.  In 
1788  she  passed  a  law  expelling  all  free  negroes.  Commenting  on 
this,  Thomas,  born  in  Ohio  of  negro  and  German  parentage,  says, 
"But  Massachusetts  was  not  alone  in  this  respect,  for  race  proscrip 
tion  ran  high  in  all  the  Northern  colonies.  In  fact,  in  many  of 
them,  persons  of  color  could  neither  own  property,  make  contracts, 
nor  testify  against  white  persons;  and  it  is  only  within  the  last 
third  of  a  century  that  many  of  these  restrictions  have  been  re 
moved/""  This  was  written  in  1901,  which  places  the  removal  of 
the  proscriptions  of  which  he  speaks  about  1870.  After  citing  the 
Massachusetts  statute  in  full,  Moore  adds  that  all  negroes  "were 


«>3Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties.  335. 
""Hinsdale,  Old  Northwest,  344. 
M52  Kent,  258,  n. 

""'Smith,   Liberty  and  Free  Soil   Parties,  336. 
Am.  Negro,  414. 


270  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

required  to  depart  in  two  months  on  penalty  of  being  apprehended, 
whipped,  and  ordered  to  depart.  The  process  and  punishment 
could  be  renewed  every  two  months."  Then  he  also  says,  "Kealizing 
the  'dead  weight'  already  resting  upon  them  in  the  body  of  their 
own  free  negroes  (though  comparatively  small  in  number),  they 
evidently  thought  it  'sagacious'  to  prevent  any  addition  to  it.""08 
Again  he  adds :  "The  reader  will  not  fail  to  notice  below,  the  arbi 
trary  and  illegal  extension  of  the  statute,  in  its  application  to  'peo 
ple  of  color,  commonly  called  Mulattoes,  pi-csumed  to  come  within 
the  intention  of  the  law."  He  then  gives  a  published  notice  order 
ing  over  two  hundred  negroes  and  mulattoes  to  leave  the  State  in 
less  than  thirty  days.609  In  1800  one-fourth  of  the  negro  members 
of  the  African  Benevolent  Society  were  driven  out  of  the  common 
wealth.610  The  writer  says  he  found  the  same  notice  in  a  Philadel 
phia  and  also  in  two  New  York  papers,  all  of  which  were  earnestly 
striving  that  the  expatriated  creatures  hear  of  their  doom.  The 
same  act  appears  in  "the  revised  edition  [of  Massachusetts  laws] 
of  1807  without  change."  Again  in  1821  the  legislature  became 
alarmed  on  account  of  free  negroes,  "the  increase  of  a  species  o-f 
population,  which  threatened  to  become  both  injurious  and  bur 
densome,"  and  appointed  a  committee  to  report  prohibitive  laws.611 
The  anti-negro  laws  were  continued  in  the  revised  statute 
of  1825,  and  not  before  1834  were  they  effaced.  Massachusetts 
never  emancipated  her  slaves  by  either  legislative  or  by  funda 
mental  law  ratified  by  her  people.  A  single  judge  was  found,  who, 
on  one  occasion,  declared  that  the  words  "all  men  are  born  free 
and  equal"  in  her  constitution  might  be  used  to  declare  the  freedom 
of  a  girl  who  was  suing  in  his  court.  The  case  grew  out  of  a  blow 
inflicted  with  a  red-hot  shovel  in  the  hands  of  the  irate  wife  of 
Col.  Ashley,  of  Sheffield,  Massachusetts.612  Thife  holding  was  clearly 
an  error,  but  since  it  was  already  seen  that  the  negro  on  Northern 
soil  was  an  unprofitable  servant,  from  that  time  slaves  began  to  be 
manumitted  or  sold  into  slavery  in  other  places. 


H.  Moore,   History  of  Slavery  in  Mass.    (Appletons,   New  York,   1866), 
230. 

"""It).,  231  to  236. 

"°Ib.,  236,  n.  1. 

"»Ib.,  238. 

""Henry  M.  Field,  D.  D.,  Bright  Skies  and  Dark  Shadows,  132-3. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  271 

Nor  did  the  New  England er  lose  his  contempt  for  the  unfor 
tunate  negro  when  far  removed  from  the  conservatism  of  his  native 
soil.  On  the  rich  shores  of  the  wonderful  and  varied  region  which 
is  now  California  and  Oregon,  the  New  Englanders  or  their  de 
scendants  opposed — not  slavery — but  the  negro.  Nature  gave  to 
this  region  from  her  most  bountiful  and  delightful  store — the  god 
of  fortune  selected  it  as  his  home ;  its  snow-crowned  mountains,  in 
terspersed  with  valleys  of  unlimited  productiveness ;  its  streams 
whose  piscatorial  allurements  are  unsurpassed ;  its  forests  of  shapely 
firs;  its  treasures  of  gold  and  natural  highways  of  commerce — all 
leave  nothing  for  which  the  heart  can  repine.  The  New  England 
poet  caught  the  musical  swell  of  the  deep-rolling  "Oregon"  where 
now  the  Columbia  goes  out  to  the  ocean  to  bear  back  vessels  of 
commerce  second  to  none.  Sure  here  we  should  find  the  "home  of 
the  brave  and  the  land  of  the  free/'  What  is  our  surprise  when  we 
turn  to  the  constitution  of  Oregon  and  read: 

"No  free  negro  or  mulatto,  not  residing  in  this  State  at  the  time 
of  this  constitution.,  shall  ever  come,  or  reside,  or  be  within  this 
State;  or  hold  any  real  estate,  or  make  any  contract,  or  maintain 
any.  suit  therein;  and  the  legislative  assembly  shall  provide  by 
penal  laws  for  the  removal  by  public  officers  of  all  such  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes,  and  for  their  effectual  exclusion  from  the  State,  and 
for  the  punishment  of  persons  who  shall  bring  them  into  the  State, 
or  employ  or  harbor  them  therein."61  This  provision  was  sustained 
by  an  overwhelming  majority  at  the  adoption  of  the  constitution 
in  1857,  and  to  this  day  remains  in  the  constitution  of  Oregon. 
No  longer  ago  than  about  1897  the  now  Republican  State  of  Oregon 
by  popular  vote  refused  to  expunge  her  organic  code  of  this  relic 
of  New  England  barbarity. 

This  negro  sentiment  made  its  appearance  in  Oregon  about  the 
same  time  her  provisional  constitution  forbade  slavery,  which  was 
either  in  1843  or  1844.  The  legislature  of  her  provisional  govern 
ment  in  1844  enacted  a  law  which  ordered  all  free  negroes  to  depart 
from  the  Territory,  and  forbade  the  coming  of  others.614  Mrs. 
Francefe  Fuller  Victor,  who  wrote  most  of  the  Oregon  history  in 
H.  H.  Bancroft's  \Yorks,615  is  inclined  to  sneer  at  this  proscription 


""IT.  S.  Ch.  and  Const.,  1506. 

n*Hittel,  History  Cal.,  Vol.  IV.,  47. 

•"W.  A.  Morris,  A.  B.,  Oregonian,  Portland,  Nov.  16,  1902. 


272  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  the  negro  as  the  work  of  the  Southern  immigrants  or  their  chil 
dren.1'18  Her  mistake  is  only  too  common  with  those  wThose  early 
prejudices  were  determined  by  the  sophistry  of  abolitionists  peculiar 
to  her  native  New  England  home,  They  forget  that  the  expatria 
tion  of  the  negro  began  in  Massachusetts,  and  gradually  spread 
until  in  every  Northern  State  the  negro  found  almost  universally 
only  those  to  be  his  friends  who  could  use  him  to  accomplish  ends 
in  which  his  personal  good  had  no  consideration. 

In  1844  the  few  free  negroes  in  Oregon  had  given  trouble  by  in 
citing  the  Indians  to  criminal  depredations.  This  induced  the 
Southern-born  members  of  the  provisional  legislature  to  incor 
porate  in  their  law's  a  clause  providing  for  the  removal  of  this 
source  of  danger.  At  that  time  Oregon  embraced  Washington, 
Idaho,  Montana,  and  the  present  State  of  Oregon;  the  region  was 
yet  infested  by  tribes  of  hostile  and  blood-thirsty  natives.  The  two 
votes  by  Northern-born  men  who  were  members  of  the  provisional 
legislature  favored  legalizing  slavery  in  the  Territory,617  so  that  in 
their  legislative  representatives  the  Northern  immigrants  at  that 
time  had  little  of  which  to  be  proud,  so  far  as  their  position  with 
reference  to  the  negro  was  concerned. 

Take  it  as  we  may,  the  seven  men,  three  of  whom  were  North 
ern-born,  who  essayed  to  make  laws  for  the  thinly-settled  and  unor 
ganized  wilderness  of  our  new  northwest,  as  it  was  in  1844, — can 
not  be  said  to  be  representative  of  any  prevailing  local  sentiment. 
But  not  so  in  1857.  When  the  constitutional  convention  met,  talent, 
experience,  and  loyal  patriotism  had  come  together — men  represen 
tative  of  the  thousands  of  their  hardy  and  enterprising  constitu 
ency.  Neither  the  representatives  nor  the  people  were  unused  to 
self-government;- nor  were  they  unfamiliar  with  the  history  of  the 
negro  both  as  a  freeman  and  a  slave.  Of  the  fifty-nine  members 
af  this  constitutional  convention,  twenty-seven  were  born  in  the 
South  and  in  slave  States ;  thirty  were  born  in  the  North  and  in 
free  States ;  Ireland  and  G-ermany  were  the  respective  homes  of  the 
other  two.618  In  the  eight  free  Northern  States  represented,  anti- 
negro  laws,  of  various  degreefe  of  severity,  either  then  yet  did  exist 


"'"Bancroft's  Works,  Vol.  XXIX.,  439. 

«7W.  H.  Gray,  History  Oregon,  378. 

«18H.  II.  Bancroft's  Works,  Vol.  XXX.,  423. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  273 

or  shortly  had  existed.  Elkins,  of  Pennsylvania,  is  the  mover  and 
author  of  the  Oregon  anti-negro  constitutional  provision;  he 
offered  in  the  convention  a  resolution,  "That  a  clause  be  inserted 
in  the  Constitution  to  prohibit  free  negroes  or  mulattoes  coming 
into  or  settling  in  this  State."61  Unfortunately,  the  Journal  does 
not  give  the  individual  vote  upon  this  resolution;  but,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  was  incorporated  in  the  constitution;  and,  since  Northern 
men  were  in  the  majority,  their  failure  to  reject  it,  together  with  its 
origin  in  their  ranks,  leaves  the  responsibility  with  them.  It  was 
from  a  Southerner,  Judge  McBride,  of  Missouri,  that  the  move 
ment  and  resolution  sprang  to  prohibit  involuntary  servitude.620 
This  had  the  support  of  only  six  Northern-born  delegates621  and 
four  Southern  men.  _  This  emancipation  effort  having  failed,  the 
convention  provided  in  the  constitution  for  a  vote  upon  the  slavery 
question,  and  it  went  to  the  people  for  primary  determination.  As 
far  as  disclosed,  throughout  the  proceedings,  that  tendency,  which 
had  so  strongly  marked  the  New  England  immigrants  in  Ohio,  Illi 
nois,  and  the  motives  of  Massachusetts  and  other  Northern  States, 
to  expatriate  the  free  negro  and  establish  a  government  for  free 
white  men  only, — having  regard  alone  to  the  welfare  of  the  superior 
race, — predominated  the  actions  of  the  Northern-born  men  in  this 
convention.  For  instance,  Smith,  of  New  York,  offered  the  reso 
lution  declaring,  "That  we,  the  representatives  of  the  freemen  of 
Oregon,  in  convention  assembled,  in  their  name,  and  by  their 
authority/'  ordain  the  constitution;622  which  language  was  adopted 
and  passed  into  the  organic  law  of  the  State.  The  vote  upon  this 
resolution  is  not  given.  This  was  meant  to  declare  that  negroes, 
mulattoefe,  and  Chinamen,  had  no  part  in  the  government  being 
formed  by  the  convention;  and  this  sentiment  was  ratified  by  the 
people. 

California,  has  a  record  no  less  bitter  toward  the  African  race. 
Congress  never  created  for  her  a  Territorial  government.  From 
the  treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico  at  Graudalupe  Hidalgo,  February  2, 
1848,  Congress  took  no  action  with  reference  to  California,  except 
by  act  approved  March  3,  1849,  "the  revenue  laws  were  extended 


""Journal  Const.  Conv.,  42. 
620Journal,  61. 
621Ib.,  62. 
622Journal,  96. 
18 


274  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

over  it,  and  it  was  erected  into  a  collection  district;  but  since  no 
United  States  courts  were  in  existence  there  it  was  provided  that 
violations  of  the  revenue  laws  should  be  prosecuted  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Oregon  or  the  district  court  of  Louisiana,  until  Septem 
ber  9,  1850,  when  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
State."8'  During  this  time  civil  government  oscillated  between  the 
military  power  inaugurated  January  11,  1847,  by  Commodore 
Stockton  by  order  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  vari 
ous  local  bodies.  But  the  local  authorities  did  not  forget  to  pro 
vide  against  the  coming  of  the  free  negro.  The  opposition  to  the 
free  negro  was  approved  by  the  people  in  the  Constitution  of  1849 
which  made  only  whites  competent  voters.  It  was  expressly  de 
clared  by  the  constitutional  convention  that  this  discrimination 
was  meant  to  apply  to  negroes.824  In  1858  "there  was  a  renewal  or 
attempted  proscription  against  free  negroes.  A  bill  was  introduced 
in  the  assembly  of  1858  to  prohibt  the  immigration  to  and  resi 
dence  in"  the  State  of  free  negroes  or  mulattos,  "which  passed 
both  houses."61  That  California,  from  the  time  our  troops  drove 
Spanish  authority  from  her  borders,  was  dominated  by  Northern- 
born  men  is  an  unquestioned  fact.  Her  Southern-born  immigrants, 
during  her  formative  period,  had  little  weight  in  determining  her 
laws  or  policy. 

From  the  oldest  New  England,  to  the  newest  northwestern  State 
or  Territory,  all  legislation  looked  solely,  at  least  always  pri 
marily,  to  the  interests  of  the  white  man ;  but  when  it  came  to  ques 
tions  concerning  the  South,  with  strange  inconsistency,  the  North 
always  insisted  that  the  interests  of  the  negro  were  paramount  to 
the  interests  of  the  whites  of  the  South.  February  23,  1849,  Hor 
ace  Mann  Severely  arraigned  the  South  becau&e  he  insisted  that  no 
rights  were  accorded  negroes  in  that  section,  and  insisted  that  every 
possible  oppression  was  used  to  stifle  development.  In  his  speech — 
which  is  representative  of  the  many  similar  ones  made  by  Northern 
representatives — in  the  lower  House  of  Congress,  he  admitted  that 
the  then  conditions  of  the  Southern  negroes  were  great  improve 
ments  over  their  original  conditions,  but  he  said,  "Has  their  condi- 


623Reports  of  Committees,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  508,  Minority  Report,  19. 
62*Hittel,  History  Cal.,  Vol.  II.,  761. 
6i3Ib.,  Vol.  IV.,  244. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  275 

tion  resulted  from  any  proposed  plan,  any  well-digested,  systema 
tized  measure,  carefully  thought  out,  and  reasoned  out,  and  in 
tended  for  their  benefit?  Not  at  all.  In  all  the  Southern  states 
and  legislative  records  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such  scheme.  .  .  . 
Even  the  dogs  have  professional  trainers.  But  not  one  thing  is 
done  to  bring  out  the  qualities  of  manhood  that  lie  buried  in  a 
slave."626 

What  do  the  statute  books  of  the  North  say  ?  What  "carefully 
thought-out  and  reasoned-out  plan"  do  we  find  in  the  North— 
even  in  the  newer  North  or  even  in  the  old  Northwest  in  whose  lap 
was  born  the  Eepublican  party,  and  from  whose  bosom  emancipa 
tion  for  the  Southern  slave  drew  much  of  its  vitality?  NOTHING; 
even  the  dog's  had  both  a  trainer  and  a  kennel  wherever  the  North 
ern  white  man  found  a  home;  but  there,  by  fundamental  law,  by 
legislative  enactment,  and  by  popular  decree,  the  negro  was  forbid 
den  even  a  kennel. 

The  free  negro  was  found  to  be  a  factor  of  danger  and  uneasiness 
all  over  the  North.  In  New  York  or  upon  the  shores  of  the  Great 
Lakes  he  was  feared.  In  Michigan,  for  instance,  a  State  without 
any  direct  or  indirect  white  Southern  immigration  of  any  conse 
quence,  as  late  as  1834,  the  negroes  whom  native  inhabitants 
had  emancipated,  together  with  some  who  had  fled  from  the  South, 
put  Detroit  in  such  a  state  of  riot  that  the  terror  of  a  massacre  at 
their  hands  required  the  presence  of  a  company  of  soldiers  to 
quell.627  So  the  question  which  constantly  confronted  the  Southern 
people  was,  What  shall  we  do  with  our  slaves  as  we  set  them  free? 
Both  individuals  and  organizations  were,  during  all  the  years,  busy 
trying  to  solve  the  problem.  In  1816  the  Kentucky  Abolition  So 
ciety  communicated  a  memorial  to  Congress  in  which  they  pointed 
to  what  was  unquestionably  a  truth,  saying  "great  numbers  of  slaves 
have  been  emancipated  .  .  .  and  it  may  be  expected  .  .  .  from  the 
spirit  of  benevolence  that  seems  to  be  taking  place  among  all  classes 
of  citizens,  that  the  number  will  daily  increase."  Then  they  set 
forth  the  fact  that  these  negroes  and  mulattoes  which  were  being 
emancipated  had  been  forbidden  to  come  into  and  dwell  in  various 
Northern  States,  especially  the  newer  ones;  and,  pointing  to  the 

82eCong.  Globe,  1849. 
•^Cooley,  History  Mich.,  213. 


276  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

crowded  condition  in  the  South,  they  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  these  negroes  had  no  opportunity  to  acquire  homes,  and  no 
newer  country  to  which  they  could  go  and  secure  homes  or  earn 
wages.  Since  the  free  negro  was  a  dangerous  factor  in  the  North, 
he  was  an  infinitely  greater  one  among  his  fellows  who  were  slaves — 
stimulated  as  he  was  by  insurrectionary  emissaries;  therefore  Con- 
gres's  was  asked  to  set  apart  from  some  of  her  vast  unoccupied  terri 
tory  a  country  for  the  emancipated  negro,  to  furnish  transporta 
tion  to  it,  to  assist  him  to  start  in  life;  and,  not  to  turn  him  loose 
like  the  colony  at  Sierra  Leone,  but  to  keep  him  under  Government 
supervision  and  tutelage  until  he  could  care  for  himself.  Here  was 
something  practical;  we  have  applied  a  similar  system  to  the  In 
dian  ;  here  was  a  proposition  humane  toward  the  negro,  and  helpful 
toward  universal  emancipation;  here  was  a  plan  which  interfered 
with  the  rights  of  no  State  or  individual.  Did  Northern  Congress 
men  champion  the  cause  ?  What  did  Congress  say  ?  They  endorsed 
the  committee  report  which  said,  "The  committee  can  see  no  cause 
for  the  interference  of  the  Government  on  this  subject;  they  have 
consequently  prepared  a  resolution  which  is  respectfully  submitted : 

"Kesolved,  That  the  prayer  of  the  petition  ought  not  to  be 
granted."628  Alone  and  unguided,  the  negro  had  not  the  "fitness  or 
capacity"  to  provide  for  himself;  under  the  strong  arm  of  the  gov 
ernment,  backed  by  a  small  per  cent,  of  the  millions  spent  on 
Indians,  opportunities  for  safe  emancipation  should  have  been 
offered  Southern  masters. 

Since  nothing  of  the  kind  was  done,  let  us  look  again  to  the 
southward  and  open  again  the  statute  books  of  the  several  slave 
States.  At  the  hands  of  some  writers,  few  pages  in  history  have 
been  more. distorted  than  the  Southern  slave  code.  The  fact  is,  that 
from  the  first  to  this  day,  surprising  philanthropic  consideration 
has  been  accorded  the  colored  race,  as  a  whole,  by  the  South.  The 
great  slave  State  of  Louisiana  stands  a  model  in  humane  considera 
tion  of  both  slaves  and  free  negroes.  In  1828  some  effort  was  made 
to  pass  a  bill  excluding  from  that  State  free  negroes.  Insurrec 
tionary  negroes,  incited  by  Northern  whites,  had  already  been,  in 
no  inconsiderable  measure,  successful  in  inciting  the  slaves  to  riot 
and  murder.  Here,  then,  was  some  excuse  for  such  a  provision ;  no 


628Am.  State  Papers  :  Misc.,  Vol.  II.,  279. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  277 

such  excuse — no  excuse  whatever,  in  fact — could  the  free  States 
give  for  their  anti-negro  laws.  Promptly  Louisiana's  governor  ve 
toed  the  measure.  The  fact  that  no  effort  was  made  to  pass  the 
bill  over  his  veto  attests  that  he  had  a  strong  following  of  broad- 
minded  and  liberal  Southerners.  'Down  'to  the  Civil  War  no  such 
or  similar  bill  ever  went  on  the  statute  books  of  that  State.629  Ken 
tucky  and.  Missouri  (1821)  were  the  first  Southern  States  to  pro 
vide  by  fundamental  law  for  the  expatriation  of  the  free  negro.830 
In  the  case  of  Missouri,  I  have  already  given  the  unquestioned  evi 
dence  of  Senator  Benton,  who  proves  that  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question  forced  his  State  to  such  protective  measures.  No 
State  in  the  Union  could  boast  a  more  humane  treatment,,  or  a  more 
generous  provision  by  fundamental  law,  of  and  for  the  slave  than 
Kentucky.  From  1799  to  the  Civil  War,— reaffirmed  in  1850— 
the  constitution  of  Kentucky  declared  that  the  legislature  "shall 
have  full  power  to  pass  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary  to  oblige  the 
owners  of  slaves  to  treat  them  with  humanity ;  to  provide  for  their 
necessary  clothing  and  provision;  to  abstain  from  all  injuries  to 
them,  extending  to  life  or  limb."631  "Full  power  to  prevent  slaves 
being  brought  into  this  State  as  merchandise,"  was  also  given  her 
legislature.632  Similar  pro>visions  are  to  be  found  in  the  slave  code 
of  Missouri. 

Not  only  do  we  not  find  the  proscription  of  free  negroes  in  Ala 
bama,  but  we  find  her  constitution  of  1819  providing  "to  prevent 
slaves  being  brought  into  this  State  as  merchandise"  and  also  to 
oblige  owners  of  slaves  to  treat  them  with  humanity,  to  provide  for 
them  necessary  food  and  clothing,  and  to  abstain  from  all  injuries 
to  them  extending  to  life  or  limb.  Section  two  of  this  constitution 
assessed  the  same  penalty  for  depriving  a  slave  of  limb  or  life  as 
that  imposed  if  the  offence  had  been  committed  "on  a  free  white 
person,  and  on  the  like  proof;  except  in  the  case  of  insurrection  of 
such  slaves."65  These  provisions  stood  the  en-forced  laws  of  the 
State  to  the  Civil  War. 


62:)Gayarre,  History  Louisiana,  Vol.  IV.,  651. 

^In  1818  Georgia  passed  a  law  to  prevent  free  negroes  emigrating  to  her 
borders  :  this  law  was  much  modified  in  1824,  and  no  return  to  the  strict  form 
was  made  until  about  1860. 

'"Hough,  Am.   Consts.,  Vol.  I.,  463. 

M2U.  S.  Ch.  and  Const.,  665,  682. 

"•U.  S.  Ch.  and  Consts.,  44. 


278  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Elsewhere  I  have  mentioned  the  liberal  provisions  of  the  Vir 
ginia  laws  concerning  both  slaves  and  free  negroes,  and  have  pointed 
out  that  Virginia  encouraged  the  manumission  of  slaves  and  re 
quired  the  master  on  manumission  to  make  certain  provisions  for  his 
former  servants.  From  the  earliest  day  down  to  1850  free  negroes 
found  both  a  home  and  a  welcome  in  the  Old  Dominion.  By  1850 
the  insurrection  spirit  had  been  so  deeply  sown  in  her  borders  that 
it  became  necessary  to  follow  the  example  set  by  her  Northern  sis 
ters  years  before,  and  in  that  year634  free  negroes  were  required  to 
leave  the  State.  But  this  requirement  was  fortified  by  conditions 
exceedingly  liberal  to  the  negro.  A  detailed  glance  at  this  law  must 
prove  valuable. 

Ignoring  the  antecedents  of  Southern  negro  laws,  even  some  of 
our  English  neighbors  cry  out  in  anguish  against  "that  hideous 
slave  code,"  as  we  hear  so  distinguished  a  man  as  our  Canadian 
brother,  Goldwin  Smith,  D.  C.  L.,  while  purporting  to  write  The 
Political  History  of  the  United  States  (McMillans,  1899).  As  he 
multiplies  interrogatives  instead  of  proof,  or  reaches  general  con 
clusions  through  isolated  and  unrepresentative  instances,  and  asks, 
"Why  was  Southern  legislation  a  code  of  terror?"  I  cannot  help 
but  see  the  analogy  of  such  argument  to  that  error  one  would  make 
should  he,  finding  a  corpse  on  the  street,  rush  wildly  around  ex 
claiming,  "Why  was  this  man  murdered"?  without  inquiring  into 
the  facts  to  see  whether  there  had  been  a  justifiable  or  excusable 
homicide  merely,  or  a  malicious,  wilful,  deliberate,  and  felonious 
killing  of  such  malice  aforethought  as  really  constituted  murder. 

Just  here,  lest  my  younger  readers  misunderstand  my  object  in 
calling  attention  to  writers  widely  read  throughout  our  land,  let  me 
again  make  emphatic  the  fact  that  one  purpose  of  this  monograph 
is  to  examine  the  credibility  of  what,  for  what  of  a  more  definite 
distinction,  is  recognized  as  the  Northern  version  of  the  Civil  War's 
causes  and  the  reasons  which  underlay  secession.  Hence,  I  have 
sought  to  examine  writers  who  are  not  only  representative  of  that 
side,  but  who  have  entered  our  libraries,  or  our  schools,  or  our 
homes,  and  whose  teachings  thus  fall  into  minds  often  too  busy  to 
examine  assertions  unaccompanied  by  evidence.  I  seek  to  stimu 
late  a  spirit  of  wider  research. 

M*U.  S.  CL.  and  Consts.,  1928. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  279 

Now,  if  we  even  leave  out  of  sight  the  real  causes  of  "that  hideous 
slave  code"  and  look  beneath  its  mask  to  see  what  it  really  did  do, 
much  of  its  "terror"  will  be  seen  to  have  been  the  variest  hallucina 
tion.  Take  Virginia's  negro  laws,  for  instance,  and  this  is  well 
because  they  are  generally  treated  as  representative  of  Southern 
anti-negro  legislation,  and  because  no  laws  in  the  South  have  been 
more  anathametized  or  given  a  more  distorted  interpretation  at  the 
hands  of  history.  Not  until  1851  did  her  constitution  make  its  first 
provisions  authorizing  the  legislature  to  "pass  laws  for  the  relief  of 
the  commonwealth  from  the  free  negro  population,  by  removal  or 
otherwise" ;  and  provide  that  free  negroes  "heretofore  emancipated" 
should  forfeit  their  freedom  by  remaining  in  the  State  more  than 
"twelve  months  after  they  became  actually  free."  This  same  arti 
cle  provided  that  the  legislature  could  neither  emancipate  living 
slaves  nor  their  descndants  yet  to  be  born.635 

Following  the  path  of  the  constitution,  the  code  declared,  "No 
free  negro  shall  migrate  into  this  State,"  except  those  on  legal 
business  for  another  person,  or  one  landing  from  a  vessel  on  which 
he  was  a  sailor,  etc.;  and  also  declared  that  emancipated  negroes 
must  abandon  the  State  within  a  year.  But  we  must  not  stop  just 
there ;  if  we  go  a  little  further  into  these  "hideous"  codices  we  readily 
discover  that  these  were  not  harsh  measures  aimed  at  the  negro 
merely  because  he  was  a  negro  or  because  the  legislature  meant  to 
stop  emancipation;  nor  were  they  meant  to  expatriate  free  negroes 
regardless  of  conditions — not  a  particle  more  than  the  laws  for  the 
expatriation  and  incarceration  of  pirates  are  not  laws  against  those 
who  make  no  piratical  record.  The  free  negro  in  the  South  was  given 
a  chance,  provided  his  record  and  character  deserved  it, — and  no 
matter  who  he  is,  character  and  record  must  determine  his  immu 
nity  from  the  operations  of  all  penal  laws.  That  it  was  the  dangerous 
free  negro  that  these  provisions  in  the  Virginia  laws  were  meant 
to  touch,  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  code  further  provided 
that  any  free  negro  who  could  "produce  satisfactory  proof  of 
his  being  of  good  character,  sober,  peaceable,  orderly,  and  indus 
trious,"  might  be  permitted  by  the  court  of  any  county  or  corpora 
tion  to  remain  in  the  State  and  reside  in  the  said  county  or  corpora 
tion.  Thus  the  law  continued  down  to  the  Civil  War.638  That  the 


•^Poore's  Constitutions,  1928. 
^Mayo's  Guide  (I860),  445. 


280  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

law  was  enforced  only  against  the  dangerous  and  exceptional  char 
acter — just  as  laws  to-day  are  enforced  against  the  dangerous  high 
wayman — i's  proven  by  the  fact  that,  as  sho>wn  by  the  Federal  cen 
sus  of  I860,  thousands  and  constantly  increasing  numbers  of  free 
negroes  actually  resided  openly  and  notoriously  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  Virginia.  Thus,  years  after  the  legislative 
regulation  and  nine  years  after  that  of  the  constitution,  we  find 
safely  domiciled  under  the  laws  of  the  Old  Dominion  thousands  of 
free  negroes. 

So  it  will  also  be  seen  that  that  part  of  these  same  provisions 
which  regulated  the  gathering  of  slaves  for  religious  worship,  or  to 
learn  to  read  and  write,  was  not  meant  so  much  to  prevent  the 
proper  exercise  of  such  privileges,  but  was  to  prevent  the  gathering 
of  numbers,  and  to  prevent  the  parasitical  work  of  these  who  had 
long  been  trying  to  reach  the  slave  under  the  guise  of  religion  to 
teach  him  that  slave  insurrections  were  "devoutly  to  be  desired." 
Thi's  was  the  only  way  the  South  had  of  intercepting  that  slimy 
emissary  who  constantly  accelerated  his  efforts  to  reach  the  slaves 
with  prints  insurrectionary  in  suggestion,  or — worse  yet — having 
pictures  of  white  women  in  such  relations  to  the  negro  as  that  the 
suggestion  was  unmistakable,637  and  which  were  necessarily  incitive 
of  that  revolting  crime  for  which,  in  New  England  not  so  exceed 
ing  long  before,  negroes  were  not  only  burned  alive  in  the  presence 
of  their  fellows,  but  where  even  an  attempted  assault  upon  a  white 
woman  sometimes  produced  a  speedy  cremation  of  the  live  negro.638 

The  importation  of  any  negroes  other  than  those  already  held 
under  the  laws  of  any  State  of  the  United  States,  was  forever  for 
bidden  by  the  constitution  of  the  Eepublic  of  Texas,  183G,  and  the 
violation  of  the  provision  was  declared  piracy.839  No  stronger  evi 
dence  was  needed  that  the  independence  of  Texas,  or  its  annexa 
tion  to  the  Union,  did  not  mean  an  increase  other  than  by  natural 
birth — a  growth  not  effected  by  territory, — in  the  number  of  slaves 
already  upon  the  American  continent.  The  fact  that  Mexkx> — and 
no  one  would  think  of  having  charity  to  accuse  any  Spanish  people 
of  that  day  of  acting  in  any  great  national  question  from  an  en 
lightened  Christian  philanthropy — found  slavery  so  unprofitable 

M7N.  Adams,  D.  D.,  View  of  Slavery  (Boston,  1854),  108. 
M8New  Jersey  Hist.  Cols.,  by  Howe  et  als.,  39. 
M9Poore's  Constitutions,  1760. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  281 

that  she  had  abolished  it,  should  have  shown  that  other  things  be 
sides  a  warm  climate  and  soil  productive  of  cotton,  tobacco,  or  rice, 
must  co-exist  to  establish  and  perpetuate  negro  slavery. 

It  is  a  remarkable  bit  of  history  that  some  of  the  Southern  States 
were  last  in  the  entire  Union — except  new  States  which  were  ad 
mitted  later — to  abrogate  the  free  negro's  right  of  suffrage.  As 
late  as  1835  free  negroes  voted  in  three  Southern  States.  South 
Carolina  was  the  last  of  these  to  disfranchise  her  large  free  colored 
population.  The  attitude  which  her  white  people  assumed  on  that 
question  is  striking  proof  that  the  Southern  whites  meant  to  treat 
the  negro  fairly  and  to  give  him.,  as  rapidly  as  the  unavoidable  con 
ditions  of  society  and  economics  would  allow,  political  and  indus 
trial  opportunities.  The  history  of  the  change  which  was  made  in 
1835  in  South  Carolina's  fundamental  law,  helps  us  to  see  that 
slavery  was  regarded  as  an  evil  to  be  destroyed  as  rapidly  as  pos 
sible  ;  and  that  there  was  no  condition  which  even  excused  the  mob 
methods  of  Northern  abolitionists ;  and  also  helps  us  to  see  that  the 
proscription^  and  disfranchisements  of  the  North  were  not  with 
out  influence  upon  the  South. 

Up' to  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  of  1835,  South  Caro 
lina's  free  negroes  had  enjoyed  the  high  privilege  of  the  ballot  for 
over  half  a  century ;  it  had  been  confirmed  to  them  by  the  constitu 
tion  of  1825.  One  of  the  members  of  the  convention  of  1835,  who 
was  of  that  exceedingly  few  Southern  men  who  held  a  different 
opinion,  declared  that  "almost  every  one  said  slavery  was  a  great 
evil."64  Manumissions  were  evidently  removing  the  evil,  because 
at  that  time  some  counties  of  the  State  had  as  many  as  three  hun 
dred  free  negro  voter's — a  number  by  no  means  insignificant.  This, 
it  is  well  to  remember,  was  long  after  the  cotton-gin  had  made  cot 
ton  the  great  slave  staple.  Delegate  Gaston  voiced  no  small  senti 
ment  of  the  convention  body  which,  it  is  fair  to  conclude,  was 
largely  representative  of  the  entire  people,  when  he  declared  that  a 
person  of  color  who  possessed  a  free-hold,  and  who  wafe  an  honest 
man,  and  "perhaps  a  Christian,"  "should  not  be  politically  excom 
municated,  and  have  an  additional  mark  of  degradation  fixed  upon 
him,  solely  on  account  of  his  color.  Let  them  know  they  are  a  part 
of  the  body  politic,"  he  continued,  "and  they  will  feel  an  attach- 


*°Proceedings  and  Debates  S.  C.  Const.  Conv.  of  1835   (Raleigh,  1836).  80. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ment  for  the  form  of  government,  and  have  a  fixed  interest  in  the 
prosperity  of  the  community,  and  will  exercise  an  important  influ 
ence  over  the  slaves."*  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  argued :  "The 
constitutional  provisions  of  other  States  in  the  Confederacy  are  not 
binding  on  us,  in  the  revision  of  our  fundamental  Charter ;  but,  in 
a  matter  of  probable  expediency,  like  the  one  now  before  us,  the  ex 
ample  of  other  States  should  fall  with  weight  upon  our  minds." 
The  speaker  then  referred  to  the  "express  exclusion"  of  free  negroes 
from  equal  political  rights  in  Connecticut,  and  pointed  to  the  con 
ditional  suffrage  of  New  York.  "In  Ohio,"  he  proceeded,  "a  com 
monwealth  peopled  chiefly  by  New  England,  and  partaking  largely 
of  its  benevolent  feelings  toward  this  class  of  people,  they  are  ex 
pressly  excluded  from  voting."  Thus  the  attitude  of  the  North  had 
brought  the  Southerner  to  feel  that  if  in  those  States  where  both 
the  free-colored  and  the  slave  population  were  small,  privileges  to 
the  negro  must  be  curtailed,  certainly  "as  a  matter  of  probable  expe 
diency"  the  densely  populated  Southern  States  much  more  de 
manded  retrenchment.  Considering  the  abolition  war  which,  at 
that  time,  had  long  been  pelting  down  upon  the  South,  the  justness 
and  firm  manliness  with  which  this  body  of  representative  South 
erners  handled  the  situation  before  them,  is  a  matter  of  no  little 
gratification.  "These  persons  are  deserving  of  some  consideration," 
affirmed  Shober.842  Said  Giles,  "We  have  the  power  and  ought  to 
devise  some  means  of  raising  them  from  their  degredation."843 
Crudup  declared  that  "no  man  could  wish  more  than  himself,  to  see 
the  race  of  men  in  question  raised  from  their  degredation,"  but 
that  he  did  not  believe  that  their  suffrage  privilege  at  that  time  was 
hastening  the  desired  end.  This  view,  induced  by  the  history  of 
the  North  taken  in  connection  with  conditions  then  existing  in 
South  Carolina,  actuated  a  small  majority  of  the  convention;  and, 
reluctantly  and  with  calm  dignity,  a  close  vote  of  66  to  61  put  it 
to  a  practical  test. 

After  speaking  of  the  strong  tendency  toward  manumission 
which  pushed  the  anti-negro  laws  of  the  South  further  down  the 
page  of  history  than  those  of  the  North,  Webster,  in  the  United 


•"Ib.,  79. 
M2Ib.,  73. 
M3Ib.,  74. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  283 

States  Senate,  March  7,  1850,  said,  "I  impute  to  the  South  no  par 
ticular  selfish  view  in  the  change  which  has  come  over  her.  I  im 
pute  to  her  certainly  no  dishonest  view.  It  has  followed  those 
causes  which  always  influence  the  human  mind  and  operate  upon 
it,"041 

Many  instances  might  be  given  showing  a  strict  enforcement  by 
all  the  Southern  States  of  those  laws  forbidding  the  enslavement  of 
captured  negroes,  or  those  whose  freedom  followed  by  virtue  of  law. 
The  decision  of  the  Louisiana  courts  is  most  striking.  "A  slave 
was  carried  by  the  owner  to  France,  where  slavery  was  not  tolerated, 
and  under  the  operation  of  whose  laws  the  slave  became  immedi 
ately  free,  and  was  brought  back  to  Louisiana,  it  was  held  that  the 
slave  being  free  for  one  moment  in  France,  could  not  be  reduced 
to  slavery  again  in  Louisiana."64 

In  1740  the  Spaniards  of  St.  Augustine  instigated  an  insurrec 
tion  of  negro  slaves  in  South  Carolina.  The  slaves  assembled  and 
began  their  march  toward  Florida  where  they  had  been  promised 
protection,  and  where  those  who  had  fled  had  been  harbored.  "In 
their  march  they  plundered  and  burned  every  house,  killed  the  white 
people/-'  and  "for  fifteen  miles  spread  desolation  through  all  the 
plantations  on  their  way.''  This  insurrection  led  to  a  revision  of 
the  slave  code,  in  which  "more  stringent  provisions  were  made 
against  the  assembling  of  slaves  and  provisions  against  insurrec 
tions,  but  in  the  main  the  amendments  to  the  code  were  in  the 
negro's  favor."  By  this  code  "a  penalty  of  five  pounds  currency  was 
imposed  upon  any  person  who  employed  any  slave  in  any  work  or 
labor  (work  of  necessary  occasions  of  the  family  only  excepted)  on 
the  Lord's  day,  commonly  called  Sunday.  The  selling  of  strong 
liquor  to  the  slaves  was  prohibited.  Slaves  were  to  be  provided 
with  sufficient  clothing,  covering,  food;  and  in  case  any  owner  or 
person  in  charge  of  slaves  neglected  to  make  such  provision,  any 
neighboring  justice,  upon  complaint,  was  required  to  inquire  into 
the  matter,  and  if  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  failed  to  excul 
pate  himself  from  the  charge,  the  justice  might  make  such  orders 
for  the  relief  of  the  slaves  as  in  his  discretion  he  should  think  fit." 
Strict  laws  for  preventing  cruelty  to  slaves  were  a  striking  feature 


'"Works,  Vol.  V.,  337. 

M5Kent's  Com.,  Vol.  II.,  258,  and  cases  there  cited. 


284:  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  this  code ;  the  burden  of  proving  his  innocence  was  thrown  upon 
the  master  in  such  charges — &  remarkable  provision  in  the  negro's 
favor.  "By  this  act,  also,  the  apparel  of  the  slave  was  regulated, 
as  were  also  the  hours  of  labor.  Owners  were  prohibited  from 
working  slaves  more  than  fifteen  hour's  in  twenty-four  from  the 
25th  of  March  to  the  25th  of  September  or  more  than  fourteen 
hours  in  twenty-four  from  the  25th -of  September  to  the  25th  of 
March."  This  code  "remained  substantially  the  law  in  regard  to 
slaves  during  the  continuance  of  the  institution  in  South  Carolina 
for  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  after,  and  its  provisions  in 
regard  to  the  killing  of  negroes  were  repeatedly  enforced.  It  was, 
however,  so  amended  in  1821  as  to  provide  that  if  any  one  should 
murder  a  slave  he  should  suffer  death  without  the  benefit  of  clergy ; 
and  if  any  one  should  kill  a  slave  in  sudden  heat  of  passion,  he 
should  be  fined  not  exceeding  $500  and  be  imprisoned  not  exceed 
ing  six  months.  ...  As  late  as  1853  two  white  men  were  convicted 
and  executed  under  the  provisions  of  the  acts  of  1740  and  1821  for 
killing  a  negro  whose  identity  was  not  established,  but  who,  under 
the  act  of  1740,  was  presumed  to  have  been  a  slave/'84 

The  official  censuses  of  the  United  States  contain  what  is,  to  my 
mind,  some  very  striking  proofs  of  the  contention  that  the  slavery 
conditions  of  the  South  were  misrepresented.  Thej-e  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  fact  that  the  Northern  agitation  fed  strongly  upon  the 
prevalent  stories  of  abuse  and  mistreatment  to  which  it  was  claimed 
the  Southern  slaves  were  subjected.  Very  many  recognized  that 
restrictive  laws  such  as  that  which  existed  in  New  York  during 
slavery,  which  "forbade  all  assemblages  o'  the  numerous  slaves, — 
for  the  slavehold ing  burghers  wer  haunted  by  the  constant  terror  of 
a  servile  insurrection;"647  or  that  in  Pennsylvania,  where  not  more 
than  four  slaves  could  meet  at  one  time,648  were  not  abusive  or  tyran 
nical.  But  Northerners,  especially  a  very  large  and  important  class 
of  women  who  became  strong  supporters  of  the  underground  rail 
road,  were  moved  by  the  representations  of  the  books,  periodicals, 
and  lecturers  concerning  the  personal  misuse  and  abuse  alleged  to 
be  received  by  the  slaves  at  the  hands  of  masters  or  overseers.  A 


•"Annual  Report  Am.  Hist.  Ass'n  1895,  House  Documents,  Vol.  LXII.,  657-8. 
M7Roosevelt,  New  York,  in  Historic  Towns,  55. 
M8Memo.  Penn.  Hist.  Soc.,  Vol.  I.,  385. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  285 

cringing  negro,  a  scowling  master — most  likely  that  product  of  an 
over-zealous  female  mind,  a  Legree — bloodhounds,  and  a  merciless 
whip  were  immediately  suggested  to  a  large  number  of  Northern 
minds  as  soon  as  the  word  "slave"  was  seen  or  heard.  As  Webster 
pointed  out  in  his  famous  seventh  of  March  speech  in  Congress  in 
1850,649  so  persistently  had  the  Northern  agitators  distorted  the 
truth  that  its  correction  had,  most  likely,  ere  then  become  impos 
sible.  In  addition  to  the  other  evidence  which  I  have  presented  in 
support  of  the  contention  that  these  agitators  did  use  false  state 
ments  with  which  the  public  was  aroused,  I  desire  to  call  attention 
to  some  things  shown  by  the  censuses  of  1850  and  1860.  So  far  as 
the  facts  with  reference  to  slavery  go,  these  two  are  the  most  im 
portant  of  our  national  censuses.  Whatever  is  shown  in  favor  of 
the  South  by  these  official  returns,  is  entitled  to  considerable  weight. 
Because,  it  is  quite  clear  that  an  effort  was  made  by  some  one  con 
nected  with  each  of  these  reports,  to  show  slavery  in  its  most  un 
favorable  light.  I  have  already  quoted  Siebert,  who  points  motet 
conclusively  to  the  fact  that  the  figures  and  statements  concerning 
the  escape  of  slaves  from  the  South  are  inadequate  and  fall  short 
of  the  "real  truth. 

The  personal  quarters  of  the  slaves  were  second  to  those  occupied 
by  the  laborer's  of  no  other  part  of  the  world.  The  census  of  1850 
tells  us  that  the  "homes  of  the  negroes— on  the  average — are  quite 
as  good  as  those  of  the  peasants  and  operatives  generally  in  Europe, 
and  better  than  those  in  Ireland — one  house  for  every  six  slaves."61 
Tin's  was  about  the  same  as  shown  for  the  white  people;  and,  with 
the  exception  of  a  small  fraction  of  a  single  negro  to  the  house,  the 
same  which  maintained  in  the  North  long  after  freedom. 

The  per  cent,  of  growth  in  slave  numbers  is  important.  Take 
the  census  of  1850.  This  was  an  important  year,  because  in  the 
decade  which  it  closed  there  was  much  ado  a.bout  the  increase  of 
slavery.  Look  at  the  figures.  In  Virginia,  for  instance,  in  1800 
the  per  cent,  of  slave  increase  was  17.84;  in  1810  it  was  13.54;  in 
1850  it  was  only  5.21.  That  of  Louisiana  in  1820  was  99.26;  but 
in  1850  it  showed  a  decrease  to  45.32.  Kentucky  went  from  241.2' 
in  a  steady  decline,  except  in  1840,  to  15.75  in  1850.  Mississippi 

MOWebster's  Works,  Vol.  V.,  357. 
^Statistics,  XL. 


286  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

fluctuated  from  389.76  to  35.22  in  1850.  Maryland  went  from 
2.52  to  .7,  nearly  a  standstill  by  1850.  Similarly  in  the  other 
States.  This  shows  that  the  more  northerly  of  the  Southern  States 
were  declining  more  rapidly  in  the  per  cent,  of  increase  in  their 
slave  population;  and  the  decline  over  the  entire  country  indicated 
that  the  slave  population  was  rapidly  approaching  a  point  where 
the  surplus  would  be  unprofitable.  This  must  have  meant  a  cessa 
tion  of  the  inter-State  trade  in  slaves,  since  each  plantation  was 
reaching  a  point  where  its  own  increase  supplied  its  demands.  In 
the  census  of  1860  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that,  "While 
slavery  in  North  America  extended,  in  1775,  from  and  including 
the  Canadian  provinces  to  Florida,  its  northern  limit  has  been 
gradually  contracting,  while  indications  clearly  point  to  its  west 
ern  termini,  which  have  doubtless  been  already  attained."  Hence, 
those  who  insisted  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  threatened  to  make 
slavery  universal  in  the  United  States,  simply  disregarded  all  past 
history  and  the  facts  that  were  transpiring  in  their  very  midst. 
They  excited  a  popular  clamor  by  using  false  arguments. 

The  number  of  free  negroes  in  the  slave  States  in  1850  is  no  less 
surprising  than  important.  Since  Northern  writers  so  frequently 
tell  us  of  the  "kidnapping  of  the  free  negro/'  we  would  hardly  ex 
pect  to  find  one  in  the  South.  The  anti-free  negro  laws  passed  by 
some  of  the  Southern  State's,  much  later  than  similar  laws  in  some 
of  the  Northern  free  States,  had  operated,  unquestionably,  to  re 
tard  emancipation.  But  this  was  their  result  rather  than  to  drive 
the  freed  negroes  out  of  the  respective  States  where  such  laws  ex 
isted.  In  1850  the  free  negroes  in  Louisiana,  for  example,  were 
17,462;  in  Virginia,  54,333;  Maryland  had  74,723,  which  was  a 
greater  number  than  were  to  be  found  in  any  free  State.  But  a's 
predicted  by  the  Kentucky  emancipation  society  in  the  early  part 
of  the  century,  to  which  I  have  referred,  in  spite  of  the  conditions 
unfavorable  to  liberation,  emancipation  held  steadily  on  its  way. 
Natural  causes,  as  I  have  herein  argued,  were  rapidly  sweeping 
slavery  from  our  continent;  left  to  itself  it  would  have  gone  much 
more  rapidly.  By  the  time  of  the  census  of  1860  manumissions 
had  increased  in  per  cent,  double  what  they  were  in  1850.  In  the 
introduction,  volume  on  population,  of  the  census  of  1860,  we  are 
told  that  "it  appears  that  manumissions  have  greatly  increased  in 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  287 

number  in  Alabama,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Mississippi, 
North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee,"  while  in  the  other  States,  except 
Florida  and  Delaware,  the  increase  was  not  so  marked,  but  still 
showed  progress.  (Xv.)  In  Delaware,  as  we  saw  above,  slavery 
had  already  about  disappeared;  and  there  was  no  indication  that  it 
could  ever  be  made  profitable  there.  In  Maryland  there  were  83,942 
free  blacks,  showing  that  about  one-half  her  slave  population  had 
been  freed.  All  things  pointed  to  an  early  disappearance  of  slavery ; 
and  had  it  been  let  alone,  before  the  Civil  War  natural  cause  would 
have  driven  it  to  the  narrow  regions  of  the  cotton  States,  and  there 
competition  by  the  cotton  countries  of  the  world  would  soon  have 
made  it  a  matter  of  history. 

What  are  we  to  conclude?  First,  that  the  Southern  people  were 
more  generous  in  their  treatment  of  the  negro  than  were  the  people 
of  the  Northern  section;  second,  the  prescriptive  and  restrictive 
laws  concerning  both  slaves  and  free  negroes — laws  declared  neces 
sary,  sooner  or  later,  by  the  greater  mass  of  the  American  people — 
declare  the  unfitness  of  the  negro  for  freedom  at  any  time  during 
the  great  agitation,  and  the  more  especially  his  unfitness  for  the  ex 
ercise  of  American  citizenship.  When  did  the  time  for  the  manu 
mission  of  the  Southern  slaves  arise  ?  Speaking  of  abolition  during 
the  war,  Thomas,  Ohio's  native  historian  of  negro  race,  an  ex- 
Union  officer  of  the  Civil  War,  says,  "The  truth  is  that  neither,  the 
white  or  the  black  people  were  prepared  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery."81  Before  this  he  declares:  "Despite  its  barbarities, 
slavery  wrought  a  salutary  formation  in  the  negro  race.  It  made 
rational  men  out  of  savage  animals,  and  industrious  serfs  out  of 
wanton  idlers.  It  found  the  negro  rioting  in  bigoted  ignorance, 
and  led  him  to  the  threshold  of  light  and  knowledge.  It  clothed 
nakedness  in  civilized  habiliments,  and  taught  a  jungle  idolater  of 
Christ  and  immortality."*  No  one  deplores  more  than  I  the 
method — or  any  method  of  enslavement — of  initiating  this  work, 
imposed  upon  the  slave-owners  of  leading  the  African  race  to 
"Christ  and  immortality,"  but  having  found  it  on  their  hands, 
thrust  there  against  their  protest,  is  Thomas  correct  when  he  says 
that  the  work  was  not  even  accomplished  by  the  Southern  people 

•"The  Am.  Negro,  44. 
M2Ib.,  21. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  ?  Speaking  of  the  slaves  as  they  were 
before  and  at  the  time  of  the  war,  Booker  T.  Washington,  the  great 
est  negro  America  has  produced,  declares  they  were  "shiftless,  dense 
in  intellect/7  and  "without  ordinary  intelligence."03  True  as  this 
was  at  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  it  was  truer  in  proportion  as  we 
go  back  towards  the  first  efforts  of  Northern  origin  to  force  eman 
cipation  in  the  South.  If  not  ready  for  freedom  in  1862,  infinitely 
Jess  were  they  ready  at  any  time  prior  thereto.  Lincoln  and  all 
rightly  thinking  Northerners  declared  that  the  slaves  were  not 
ready  for  freedom  at  any  time  during  the  first  years  of  the  nation. 
And  Lincoln  always  insisted  that  at  no  time  was  other  than  gradual 
emancipation,  and  by  consent  of  the  owners,  legal,  right,  OT  advis 
able  for  either  side.654  In  1854  in  one  of  the  debates  with  Douglas, 
Lincoln  •  said,  "When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more  re 
sponsible  for  the  origin  of  slavery  than  we  are,  I  acknowledge  the 
fact.  When  it  is  said  that  ...  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it  in 
any  satisfactory  way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate  the  saying. 
1  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should  not  know 
how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power  were  given  to  me,  I  should 
not  know  what  to  do  as  to  the  existing  institution."8' 

In  common  with  this  realization  of  the  truth  by  the  man  of  that 
awful  hour,  educated,  influential  negroes  of  to-day  say  that  neither 
side  was  ready  when  the  crisis  came;  unquestionably,  then,  the  anti- 
slavery  agitation,  dragging  with  it  its  awful  methods  from  the 
North,  was  a  crusade  of  blind  bigotry,  or  a  fight  in  the  interest  of 
the  most  selfish  aggrandizement. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of 
the  present  race  problem.  It  would  be  interesting  to  call  attention 


Future  of  the  Am.  Negro.  11.  In  1856  or  '57  T.  R.  R.  Cobb,  of  Georgia, 
sent  inquiries  to  the  governors  and  leading  politicians  of  the  Northern  free 
States,  asking  for  accurate  and  reliable  information  as  to  the  advancement  and 
condition  of  the  free  negroes  in  the  respective  States.  The  information  thus  ob 
tained,  in  the  greater  majority  of  instances,  was  discouraging  to  emancipation. 
He  received  answers  from  eleven  States.  Briefly  their  information  was  :  Conn., 
"not  thrifty,"  "immoral" ;  N.  J.,  "debased  *  *  *  generally  indolent"  ;  Penn., 
"much  deteriorated  by  freedom"  ;  Ind.,  "sent  forty  this  year  to  Liberia  *  *  * 
hope  finally  to  get  rid  of  all  *  *  *  do  not  intend  to  have  another  negro  or 
mulatto  come  into  the  State"  ;  111.,  "thriftless,  idle,  vicious"  ;  N.  J.,  "one-fourth 
criminals  in  State  colored,  while  colored  population  is  but  one-twelfth." — Cobb, 
Sketches  of  Slavery,  202-3. 
""Bell's  Lincoln,  119,  217. 
.,  76. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  289 

to  the  fact  that  the  proscription  of  the  negro  is  as  acute  among 
Northern  people  to-day  as  ever  in  our  history.856  It  would  be  in 
structive  to  notice  that  even  yet  the  negro  is  often  refused  employ 
ment  in  the  North ;  and  that  in  Northern  shops  white  men  generally 
refuse  to  work  by  his  side.657  In  the  words  of  the  great  Southern  edu 
cator,  "The  time  is  not  ,far  distant  when  the  world  will  begin  to 
appreciate  the  real  character  of  the  burden  that  was  imposed  upon 
the  South  in  giving  the  franchise  to  four  millions  of  ignorant  and 
impoverished  ex-slaves.  No  people  was  ever  before  given  such  a 
problem  to  solve.  History  has  blazed  no  path  through  the  wilder 
ness  that  could  be  followed."038  With  so  few  negroes  that  there  was 
nothing  to  fear,  the  North  held  back ;  but  she  thrust  the  problem 
upon  the  South,  where  "freemen  were  permitted  to  vote  two  years 
in  advance  of  the  time  when  most  Northern  negroes  were  granted 
suffrage/7  as  Thomas  says.650  Gen.  S.  C.  Armstrong  was  born  of 
missionary  parents  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands ;  his  father  was  a  Penn- 
sylvanian,  and  his  mother  a  native  of  Massachusetts.  He  did 
valiant  service  for  the  Union  in  the  Civil  War,  and  perhaps  no 
dozen  Northern  men  have  done  afe  much  for  the  uplifting  of  the 
negra  since  the  war  as  he.  I  would  be  glad  to  call  him  to  the  wit 
ness  stand  and  let  him  tell,  for  the  benefit  of  those  not  familiar 
with  his  words,  that  from  the  very  time  Lee's  soldiers  were  dis 
banded,  both  whites  and  blacks  of  tlie  South  were  "willing  to  do 
the  fair  thing."660  Then  I  would  call  again  Booker  T.  Washington 
and  have  him  tell,  cumulative  to  this,  as  we  hear  him  in  his  recent 
book,  that,  "There  is  almost  no  prejudice  against  the  negroes  in 
the  South  in  matters  of  business,  so  far  as  the  native  whites  are 
concerned ;  .  .  .  But  too  often  when  the  wThite  mechanic  or  factory 
operative  from  the  North  gets  a  hold,  the  trades  union  soon  fol 
lows,  and  the  negro  is  crowded  to  the  wall."66  No  one  who  did  not 
spend  in  the  South  the  first  twenty-five  years  after  the  war  can 
have  a  correct  conception  of  the  impoverished  condition  left  to 
those  who  survived  the  war  or  who  were  soon  to  be  born.  Yet  hy 


656Henry  M.  Field   (of  Mass),  D.  D.,   Bright  Skies  and  Dark  Shadows,  152. 
^Booker  T.  Washington,  The  Future  of  the  American  Negro,  75,  76,  175. 
•"Ib.,  146. 

G39The  Am.  Negro,  306. 

^Twenty-two  Years'  Work  of  Hampton   Inst.    (for  negroes  and  Indians),  Vir 
ginia.  3. 

^The  Future  of  the  Am.  Negro,  78-9. 
19 


290  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

1890  there  were  "16,000  negro  free  schools  of  the  South — nearly 
2.000  in  Virginia  alone — costing  the  ex-slave  states  nearly  four 
millions  of  dollars  a  year  in  taxation."6'  Of  course,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  various  reports  of  education,  the  number  of  schools  and 
their  support  by  taxation  or  municipal  aid,  is  now  greatly  in  excess 
of  this;  but  the  showing  of  1890  is  the  more  remarkable  because 
reached  during  the  period  of  greatest  embarrassment,  and  during 
the  time  when  not  only  the  negro  contributed  little  to  the  expenses 
of  taxation,  but  when  as  a  productive  factor  he  was  of  least  force. 
But  all  these  more  recent  phases  of  our  history,  I  must  dismiss  to 
confine  what  I  have  to  say  to  the  ante-bellum  period. 


^Twenty-two  Years  of  Hampton  Institute,  9. 


XIII. 

t 

UNIVERSAL  HISTOEY  OF  SLAVERY. 

DISREGARD  OF  ITS  LESSONS  BY  NORTHERN  ABOLITIONISTS. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Southern  people  realized  that 
the  wrongs  they  were  suffering  were  not  only  without  a  precedent  in 
the  world's  history,  but  that  that  history  refuted  every  argument  of 
the  abolitionist;  he  was  left  without  legal  or  Constitutional 
authority  at  home  and  without  justification  in  either  ancient  or 
modern  history.  The  slavery  history  of  the  civilized  world  shows 
that  legislation  cannot  make  civilization, — that  conscientious  moral 
support  must  precede  legislative  decrees, — that  legislation  cannot 
anticipate  what  would  otherwise  come,  except  greater  injury  be 
done  in  the  effort  than  would  have  resulted  without  it.  Slavery  has 
existed  at  certain  political  or  moral  stages  of  all  peoples.  In  their 
own  good  time  each  people  saw  it  undesirable  longer  to  continue  the 
institution  of  slavery,  either  for  purely  economic  reasons  or  be 
cause  of  an  enlightened  and  Christianized  conscience,  or  the  two 
combined,  it  matters  not  which  or  how;  the  fact  remains  that  the 
same  causes  were  doing  their  work  in  America — unaided  by  North 
ern  anti-slavery  people. 

During  the  whole  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  in  England  down 
as  late  as  1066,  the  sale  and  purchase  of  slaves  publicly  prevailed. 
The  English  historian,  John  Lingard,  D.  D.,  tells  us  that,  "These 
unhappy  men  were  sold  like  cattle  in  the  market,  ...  To  the  im 
portation  of  foreign  slaves  no  impediment  had  ever  been  opposed; 
the  export  of  native  slaves  wafe  forbidden  under  severe  penalties. 
But  habit  and  the  pursuit  of  gain  had  taught  the  Northumbrians 
to  bid  defiance  to  all  efforts  of  the  legislature.  Like  the  savages  of 
Africa,  they  are  said  to  have  carried  off,  not  only  their  own  country 
men,  but  even  their  friends  and  relatives,  and  to  have  sold  them  as 
slaves  in  the  ports  of  the  continent.  .  .  .  Their  agents  traveled  into 
all  parts  of  the  county:  they  were  instructed  to  give  the  highest 
prices  for  females  in  a  state  of  pregnancy.  .  .  .  This  obstinacy 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

yielded,  however,  not  alone  to  the  severity  of  the  magistrates,  but 
to  the  zeal  of  Wulstan,  Bishop  of  Worcester."  For  several  years 
successively  Wulstan  preached  on  Sunday  against  this  traffic,  "until 
at  last  the  merchants  were  convinced  by  his  reasons,"  so  the  histo 
rian  tells  us,  and  renounced  forever  the  trade.603  Xo  injury  was 
done  the  slaveholders ;  no  .efforts  were  made  to  make  war  upon  or 
to  massacre  them;  yet  one  of  the  most  debasing  systems  of  slavery 
gave  way  forever  without  bloodshed  and  without  jeopardizing  the 
peace  of  a  nation. 

It  remained  for  the  English,  the  sons  of  the  sturdy  Anglo-Sax 
ons,  to  restore  the  traffic,  but  in  a  much  milder  form,  horrible  even 
as  it  was.  Not  only  was  the  traffic  restored,  but  in  her  dependencies 
English  subjects  held  slaves  until  1833.  England's  first  attempt 
to  legislate  the  horrors  of  the  slave  trade  out  of  existence  was  really 
in  advance  of  the  day.  The  world  was  not  ready  for  the  step. 
More  harm  was  done  than  good.  All  any  nation  can  do  properly  is 
to  do  what  i's  productive  of  most  good  and  least  harm.  As  Mr. 
Archibald  Alison,  E.  E.  S.  E.,  the  distinguished  English  historian, 
and  others  tell  us,  the  opposition  to  this  first  English  anti-slavery 
law,  enacted  June  11,  1806,  pointed  out  that  the  world  was  not  yet 
ready  for  the  stroke ;  and  that  the  bill  would  increase  the  trade  and 
double  the  .horror's  of  the  slave  field.  Mr.  Alison  very  clearly  shows 
that  such  was  the  result.  He  says  its  effects  were  in  the  "highest 
degree  deplorable."  He  then  adds,  "Never  was  a  more  striking  ex 
ample  than  this  subject  has  afforded  in  its  latter  stages,  of  the  im 
portant  truth  that  mere  purity  of  intention  is  not  sufficient  in  leg 
islative  measures,  and  that,  unless  human  designs  are  carried  into 
execution  with  the  requisite  degree  of  foresight  and  wi'sdom,  they 
often  become  the  source  of  the  most  heart-rending  and  irremediable 
calamities."*  I  cannot  now  enter  into  an  examination  of  why  this 
act  of  the  English  Parliament  had  so  disastrous  an  effect  more  than 
to  observe  again  that  the  world  was  not  yet  ready  for  the  step,  and 
that  the  withdrawal  of  the  spacious  English  vessels  from  the  trade 
gave  to  Spaniards  an  opportunity  to  convert  their  smaller  crafts 
into  the  most  inhuman  of  slavers. 


663Hist.  Eng.  (London,  1875),  Vol.  I.,  212;  E.  A.  Freeman,  Oxford,  M.  A., 
Hon.  D.  C.  L.,  LL.D.,  The  Reign  of  Wm.  Rufus,  Vol.  I.,  310  ;  Hallam,  Middle 
Ages,  Vol.  III.,  299,  n.  5. 

66*Hist.  Europe,  Vol.  II.,  498. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  293 

By  1833  the  public  opinion  of  England  was  upon  a  different  foot 
ing.  Many  of  the  English  sla,ve-owners  lived  in  England,  while 
their  slaves  lived  away  under  overseers  and  in  some  of  the 
English  islands;  this  separation  of  the  master  from  his  slaves  led 
to  far  heavier  yokes  than  those  imposed  in  the  Southern  States  of 
the  United  States.  The  English  conscience  had  had  time  to  ex 
pand  unopposed,  while  the  Englishman's  purse  was  not  robbed. 
Then,  too.  by  that  time  the  economic  conditions  of  the  English 
dependencies,  and  for  that  matter  those  of  the  most  of  the  world, 
demanded  a  change  of  the  labor  system.  Charles  Knight,  also  an 
English  authority,  tells  us  that  "every  estate  was  encumbered  and 
every  planter  embarrassed" — speaking  of  the  English  slaveholders 
of  this  period.665  To  the  same  effect  Goldwin  Smith,  D.  C.  L.,  says 
the  "declining  profits  of  the  planter"866  was  rapidly  forcing  him  to 
bankruptcy.  These  conditions  had  produced  a  change  of  sentiment 
generally,  and  accordingly  such  force  of  public  opinion  was  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  government  that  Parliament,  1833,  passed  an  act 
of  general  emancipation  for  the  800,000  negro  slaves  within  the 
Britten  empire:  "and  twenty  millions  of  pound  sterling  were  ap 
propriated  to  compensate  the  owners."8* 

It  is  a  striking  commentary  on  the  moral  attitude  of  the  aboli 
tion  Xorth  that  compensation  to  Southern  slave-owners  was  spurned 
by  the  Xorth  with  the  most  unbrotherly  contempt — not  until  the 
war  was  in  open  outbreak  was  there  any  material  effort  in  this  direc 
tion.  Mr.  Rhodes  has  said  that  the  South  would  not  have  received 
compensation.  This  assertion  has  not  a  single  fact  of  history  to 
back  it :  the  South  would  gladly  have  accepted  emancipation  if 
bankruptcy  and  other  after-results  had  not  stared  her  in  the  face. 

While  the  English  Government  did  all  it  reasonably  could  to 
help  its  declining  planters  out  of  an  embarrassing  situation,  yet  the 
measure  found  no  little  opposition,  because  it  was  argued  by  the 
planter  that,  gradual  though  emancipation  wa.s  to  be,  he,  neverthe 
less,  would  be  bankrupt,  because  even  the  proposed  change  in  the 
labor  system  was  too  sudden.  For  great  numbers  this  proved  too 
true.  Upon  the  planters  of  Jamaica,  and  generally  of  the  sugar- 


6C5Hist.  of  England   (London.  1865).  Vol.  VIII..  331. 

GOOThe  United  Kingdom.  Vol.  II.,  370. 

067 Montgomery,   The  Leading  Facts  of  English  History.  354. 


29-i  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

cane  growers,  in  Knight's  own  words,  the  Emancipation  Act  "came 
like  a  destroying  blight."6'  J.  Smith  Homans,  some  time  corre 
sponding  secretary  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  State  of  New 
York,  writing  in  Harper  Brothers'  Commerce  and  Commercial 
Navigation  in  1858,  upon  the  effects  of  the  English  act  in  Jamaica, 
says,  "Hitherto  its  history,  since  emancipation,  has  been  discourag 
ing  to  the  friends  of  liberty.  The  negro  on  whom  the  cultivation  of 
the  island  depends  has  gradually  retired  from  labor,  and  retro 
graded  in  the  social  scale.  ...  It  is  the  natural  result  of  removing 
all  restraint  from  a  people  low  in  civilization.  .  .  .  Already  the 
enormous  depreciation  of  property  has  caused  the  ruin  of  so  many, 
that  the  name  of  Jamaica  proprietor  .  .  .  ife  now  associated  with 
poverty  and  distress/'6'  The  act  killed  the  trade  of  the  British 
West  India  Islands,  and  for  many  years  thereafter  it  remained  com 
paratively  stationary.670  Cuba  and  Brazil  took  advantage  of  this 
situation.  They  increased  their  slave  forces,  and  worked  their 
slaves  so  hard  to  supply  the  shortage  in  the  sugar  supply  which  the 
decline  of  production  on  English  plantations  had  produced,  that 
their  slaves  were  "worn  down  by  their  cruel  taskmasters  to  the 
grave  by  a  lingering  process"  which  terminated  the  slave's  life  in 
about  seven  years.671 

The  opposition  to  the  Parliamentary  Act  of  1833  prophesied 
these  evils,  and  argued  that  while  slavery  was  an  economic  evil, 
that  yet  it  was  one  which  would  disappear  from  English  soil  by  vir 
tue  of  its  self-limitation,  and  that,  too,  with  less  bad  effect  to  both 
slave  and  master  than  thotee  effects  which  would,  and  that  actually 
did,  follow  the  law.  They  pointed  to  the  disappearance  of  the  most 
galling  form  of  slavery  from  among  the  Anglo-Saxons.  They 
pointed  to  the  fact  that  slavery  wore  itself  out  with  the  "happiest 
effects  in  both  Spain  and  Portugal."07  Europe  furnished  a  strong 
example.  "The  Germans,  in  their  primitive  settlement,"  had 
slaves.  "When  they  invaded  the  Eoman  Empire  they  found  the 
same  conditions  established  in  all  its  province?."0'  "As  society  ad- 


'5ftSKnglish  Hist.,  Vol.  VIII.,  331. 

'•69Harper  Brothers,  New  York.  Ib..   1123. 

670Alison,  Hist.  Europe,  Vol.  II.,  499,  n.  — . 

671Ib.,  498  ;  Turnbull,  Cuba,  279. 

672Ib.,  498. 

673IIallam,  Middle  Ages,  196. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  295 

vanced  in  Europe  the  manumission  of  slaves  became  more  fre 
quent."6'  Why  ?  As  on  English  plantations  the  planters  found  it 
unprofitable  as  the  intellectual  and  industrial  advance  of  the  world 
drove  steadily  on  its  course,,  as  in  America  slavery  yearly  grew  an 
economic  burden,  so,  Hallam  tells  us,  it  was  in  Europe,  where  "in 
peace  the  industry  of  free  laborers  must  have  been  found  more  pro 
ductive  and  better  directed.  Gradually  their  number  decreased, 
until  by  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  in  Italy  slaves  no  longer 
existed."67  In  some  German  communities  the  greater  part  of  the 
slave-peasants  acquired  their  freedom  before  the  middle  of  the  thir 
teenth  century.  While  in  other  parts  of  Germany  and  Eastern 
Europe  they  remained  in  an  easy  "sort  of  villanage"  until  later  days. 
Some  years  after  the  disappearance  of  the  shameful  slavery  which 
had  existed  in  the  days  of  the  good  Wulstan,  its  institution,  as  well 
as  the  slave  trade,  had  been  re-established  in  England  proper  no 
less  securely  than  in  her  several  dependencies.  Concerning  this 
latter  slavery  in  England  proper,  Thomas  M.  Cooley,  LL.  D.,  as  is 
well  known,  some  time  a  Ju'stice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Michi 
gan,  says,  "It  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  follow  the  imperceptible 
steps  'by  which  involuntary  servitude  at  length  came  to  an  end  in 
England.  It  was  never  abolished  by  statute;  and  the  time  when 
slavery  ceased  altogether  cannot  be  accurately  determined.  The 
causes  were  at  work  silently  for  centuries  .  .  .  they  were  not  the 
subject  of  agitation  or  controversy."876  From  earliest  times  up  to 
1771  masters  brought  negro  slaves  with  them  to  England,  and  "re 
moved  them  again  without  question,"  adds  Cooley.677  In  1771  Lord 
Mansfield  "with  evident  reluctance"  delivered  the  opinion  in  what 
is  known  as  the  Sommer'set  Case,  in  which  he  held  that  "to  bring 
a  slave  into  England  was  to  emancipate  him."  Of  the  practice 
prior  to  this  decision  Lord  Stowell  said,  "The  personal  traffic  in 
slaves  resident  in  England  had  been  as  public  and  as  authorized  in 
London  as  in  any  of  our  West  India  Islands.  They  were  sold  on 
exchange,  and  other  places  of  public  resort,  by  parties  themselves 
resident  in  London,  and  with  as  little  reserve  as  thev  would  have 


6T4Ib.,  190. 
075Ib.,  200. 

^Constitutional    Limitations.    360 ;    see  -also    Bancroft's    Hist.    United    States, 
Vol.  I.,  ch.  5. 
677Ib.,  302. 


290  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

been  in  any  of  our  West  India  possessions.  Such  a  state  of  things 
continued  without  impeachment  from  a  very  early  period  up  to  the 
end  of  the  last  century" — meaning  up  to  the  Sommerset  Case."8 
Slavery  had  also  disappeared  from  Scotland  in  the  early  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  Sweden  prohibited  the  slave  traffic  in  1813, 
Holland  in  1814;  Portugal  early  restricted  this  trade;  not  far  from 
the  same  time  France  entered  the  field  with  gradual  restrictions; 
and  Brazil  followed  in  1825,  though  slavery  remained  with  her 
until  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  up  to  which  time  her  pro 
hibitive  laws  were  violated  with  the  most  audacious  impunity  by 
sla.ve  dealers  and  ship-owners  from  the  Northern  States  of  the 
United  States. 

Whatever  the  causes  which  wrought  these  salutary  and  humane 
changes,  they  had  nowhere  produced  an  "irrepressible  conflict" 
whose  devastating  path  is  marked  by  an  innumerable  host  of  white 
and  silent  sentries  that  keep  relentless  vigil  over  the  entombed 
bodies  of  multitudes  of  slaughtered  human  sacrifices,  like  that 
mournful  army  which  must  forever  encamp  throughout  our  South 
land,  and  whose  chiseled  challenges  must  continue  to  halt  us  at 
the  graves  of  gone  yet  never-to-be-forgotten  loved  ones.  Of  the 
causes  which  destroyed  the  slavery  of  older  countries  it  is-  inter 
esting  to  note  that  Macaulay070  says  the  chief  thing  was  the  Chris 
tian  religion:  Mackintosh080  attributed  the  causete  mainly  to  the 
"humane  spirit  which  breathes  through  the  morality  of  the  Gospel." 
Hume681  finds  the  cause  in  the  fact  that  the  barons  were  convinced 
that  the  returns  from  their  lands  would  be  increased  by  the  use 
of  free  labor ;  which  is  substantially  to  declare  that  under  advanced 
economic  condition's  slave  labor  in  competition  with  free  labor  must 
soon  bring  bankruptcy  to  the  slaveholder. 

There  was  not  only  no  reason  why  slavery  in  America  should  not 
pass  from  our  soil  in  obedience  to  the  same  laws  that  had  driven  it 
from  other — almost  all  other — countries,  but  it  had  gone  from  the 
North ;  it  was  slowly  yet  surely  dying  from  the  Northwest ;  it  was 
already  unprofitable  in  the  upper  South:682  and  Carr  tells  us  that 


678Ib..  362.  n.  3. 

679Hist.  Eng..  c.   1- 

680Hist.  Eng..  c.  4. 

681Hist.  Eng..  c.  23. 

«82Sir  Geo.  Campbell.  M.  I'..  White  and  Illack  (X.  Y..  1879).  1-K). 


NORTHERN  REBELLION   AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  297 

in  1828  Missouri  was  credibly  reported  as  on  the  verge  of  passing 
an  emancipation  law.  Yet  in  utter  disregard  of  the  teachings  of 
the  past,  Northern  abolitionists  pursued  such  a  course  as  checked 
the  Missouri  movement;083  and  not  this  only,  but  such  a  course  with 
reference  to  the  South  in  general  as  had  the  result  which  I  have 
more  than  once  mentioned.  This  mad  attack  of  an  impatient  and 
self-serving  Northern  faction — which  became  the  cause  of  the  strug 
gle  which  followed, — wa's  inexcusable,  I  feel  I  may  again  repeat, 
because  in  its  incipiency  it  had  neither  moral  nor  political  founda 
tion  ;  in  its  adolescence  it  had  become  an  insane  fanaticism  as  dan 
gerous  to  republican  institutions  as  anarchy.  That  faction  in  the 
North  who  encouraged  or  aided  the  underground  railroad;  that 
element  who  aided,  encouraged,  or  helped  to  carry  on  the  Kansas 
rebellion;  those  who  refused  to  desist  their  agitation  in  obedience 
to  the  rulings  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Union;  the  numbers 
who  discarded  the  Constitution  and  nullified  the  laws  of.  Congress 
passed  pursuant  thereto;  they  who  attempted  what  must,  un 
checked,  have  led  to  wholesale  mas'sacre  of  Southern  whites — these 
and  the  combined  efforts  of  all  these  produced  Southern  secession, 
and  thus  led  to  war.  That -fair-minded,  far-sighted  number  in  the 
North  who  neither  aided  nor  encouraged  any  one  or  more  of  these, 
is  free  from  the  blood-guilt  of  that  unpardonable  struggle.  Neither 
these  latter  nor  their  progeny  will  raise  a  cry  of  protest  when,  as 
one  day  will  be  done,  an  unprejudiced  world  will  inscribe  over  the 
tomb  of  the  pre-bellum  North :  "Thy  brother's  blood  crieth  from 
the  earth." 

Nor  will  the  apologist  for  the  advocates  of  any  of  these  causes 
succeed  in  justifying  or  excusing  them  until  he  proves  that  the 
Southern  people  were  exempt  from  the  universal  law  of  progress. 
That  onward  sweep  to  higher  social  and  political  life, — be  its  im 
petus  Christianity,  evolution,  economic  powers,  or  what  it  may, — 
the  historian  need  not  stop  to  inquire, — was  most  surely  hurrying 
African  slavery  from  the  world;  and  it  was  doing  so  without  war. 
To  argue  that  the  Southern  people,  in  their  position  with  reference 
to  slavery,  were  endeavoring  to  reverse  nature;  to  insist  that  their 
"peculiar  civilization"  "broke  faith  with  the  new  order"  for  no 
higher  reason  than  that  which  a  Chinaman  can  assign  for  his 

883Carr.  Missouri.  175-6. 


298  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

dogged  conservatism,  merely  "to  keep  faith  with  the  old/'684  is  to 
ignore  the  chronology  of  our  history,  and  to  deny  the  "funda 
mental  principle  of  economic  activity,"  and  to  deny  that  "the 
economic  nature  of  man  is  something  absolute,  inseparable  from 
the  very  character  of  man.""  The  South  was  no  more  averse  to 
prosperity  than  the  North;  the  question  between  the  two  sections 
was  whether  the  acts  of  which  the  South  complained  were  suffi 
cient  to  combat,  rather  than  aid  the  natural,  inevitable  develop 
ment  of  the  American  people,  and  to  what  extent  they  imperiled 
peace  and  invited  ruin  to  the  Southland. 


684Brown,  Harvard  Hist.  Lectures,  The  Lower  South,  112. 
683Carl  Bucher   (Univ.  Leipzig),  Industrial  Evolution,  1,  2. 


XIV. 

CONCLUSIVE     EVIDENCES     OF    IMMINENT 

EVIL. 

CONNECTION  BETWEEN  LINCOLN^  ELECTION  AND  SECESSION — JOHN 
BROWN  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  A  LARGE  AND  DANGEROUS  FACTION. 

During  the  turmoil  and  bitter  criminations  and  re-criminations 
which  preceded  the  South's  exercise  of  that  right  to  which  the  larger 
part  of  the  nation  had  clung  since  the  ratification  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  now  and  then  some  one  would  accuse  her  of  a  desire  to  break 
away  from  the  Union  merely  for  the  sake  of  setting  up  an  inde 
pendent  republic.  Xo  sane  man  then  or  now  sincerely  believed  or 
believes  such  to  have  been  true.  The  South  asserted  that  only  in 
the  last  resort  and  for  imminent  causes  could  or  should  the  Union 
be  declared  dissolved.  When  the  machinery  of  the  Government 
fell  into  hands  where  it  would  be  used,  so  far  as  could  be  seen, 
for  the  hopeless,  continued  subversion  of  the  Government  itself; 
and  where  its  use  or  failure  to  be  used  properly  would  produce  evils, 
by  no  means  ephemeral,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  prevent 
which  the  States  had  formed  a  closer  Union,  then  there  was  left 
to  the  Southern  States  but  two  possible  courses:  ignoble  endur 
ance,  or  a  resort  to  armed  force.  A  resort  to  armed  force  offered 
also  two  alternatives :  an  effort  to  restore  to  their  normal  conditions 
the  functions  of  the  Government;  or,  a  formal  declaration  that  ex 
isting  conditions  and  imminent  evils  had  dissolved  the  Union,  ac 
companied  by  a  notification  that  the  suffering  members  preferred 
to  remain  apart  rather  than  wage  aggressive  war  for  correction  of 
the  subversion.  The  responsibilities  for  war  are  of  the  gravest 
character;  a  formal  declaration  of  secession  was  not  a  declaration 
of  war;  if  war  should  come,  a  declaration  by  the  Southern  States 
that  the  existing  conditions  rendered  them  no  longer  under  obliga 
tions  to  the  Government  as  administered  by  the  abolitionists,  left 
war's  sickening  responsibilities  most  certainly  not  upon  the  South. 
Numerous  friends  had  the  South  in  the  Northern  States ;  and  these 


300  NORTHERN   REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

generally,  together  with  many  patriotic  Southerners,  halted  on  the 
verge  of  action  in  hope  that  a  remedy  less  severe  than  the  with 
drawal  of  allegiance  might  be  found.  These  were  not  in  doubt  as 
to  the  right  or  justification  of  secession  based  upon  the  alleged 
causes;  there  was  no  question  in  the  minds  of  the  Southern  people 
as  to  the  legal  or  moral  right  of  the  action  under  the  existing  con 
dition's.  With  some  there  was  merely  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
how  the  evils  might  be  best  averted.  But  events  hastened;  politi 
cal  intriguers  and  men  insane  from  the  intoxication  of  agitation 
drew  across  the  sun  of  national  happiness  a  sable  curtain:  on  it 
wa's  emblazoned  the  torch  of  the  incendiary,  and  through  its 
meshes  percolated  the  innocent  blood  of  assassinated  victims.  A 
majority  in  the  South  chose  what  they  deemed  the  less  of  two 
evils, — a  choice  none  the  less  heroic  for  want  of  final  success.  True 
to  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  proper  majority  rule,  the  voice  of 
the  Southern  majority  became  the  voice  of  the  South. 

Why  this  action  of  the  South  followed  so  closely  upon  the  elect- 
tion  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  is  not  always  clearly  understood.  In  his 
election,  why  did  the  South  feel  that  her  patience  had  reached  its 
limit,  and  that  further  delay  would  be  suicidal  ?  Why  did  she  feel 
that  a  declaration  of  her  future  position  was  tlien  and  there  justi 
fiable, — and  not  merely  justifiable,  but  required? 

(1)  The  rebellion  in  Kansas,  backed  as  we  have  seen  by  the 
North,  had  shown  a  determination  on  the  part  of  Northern  people 
to  pursue  and  carry  out  their  view  by  force  of  arms.  (2)  The  in 
crease  of  the  operations  of  the  underground  slave-stealing  system 
demonstrated  a  growing  Northern  faction  bent  on  inciting  the 
negro  to  discontent  and  violence.  (3)  The  enactment  of  laws  by  ten 
Northern  States,  the  purpose  and  effect  of  which  were  to  destroy 
and  combat  the  fugitive  slave  laws  passed  by  Congress,  demon 
strated  a  determination  on  their  part  to  nullify  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  and  to  set  at  defiance  the  laws  of  Congress;  more,  these 
Northern  anti-Federal  laws  destroyed  the  binding  force  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  The  Southern  people  were  by  no  means 
alone  in  this  contention.  In  1822,  President  John  Quincy  Adams 
laid  down  this  rule :  "But  let  us  suppose  the  case  of  legislative  acts 
of  one  or  more  States  of  this  Union  are  passed,  conflicting  with 
acts  of  Congress,  and  commanding  the  resistance  of  their  citizens 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  301 

against  them,  and  what  else  can  be  the  result  but  war — civil  war? 
And  is  not  that,  de  facto,  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  so  far  as  the 
resisting  States  are  concerned?"68  Again  he  said,  "I  therefore 
hold  it  a  principle,  without  exception,  that,  whenever  the  consti 
tuted  authority  of  a  State  authorizes  resistance  to  any  act  of  Con 
gress,  or  pronounces  it  unconstitutional,  they  do  thereby  declare 
themselves  and  their  State  quoad  hoc  out  of  the  pale  of  the 
Union."88  When  it  is  remembered  that  in  some  instances  the  anti- 
fugitive  slave-law  regulations  which  they  had  put  upon  the  statute 
books  of  the  respective  States,  made  a  United  States  officer  in  the 
execution  of  the  Federal  law  liable  to  incarceration  in  a  State  jail, 
no  one  can  doubt  that  the  so-called  "liberty  laws"  met  the  condi 
tions  which  Adams  thus  laid  down.  (-1)  Thomas  Jefferson's  view 
of  emancipation  was  that  "It  is  still  in  our  power  to  direct  the 
process  of  emancipation  and  deportation  peaceably,  and  in  such 
slow  degrees,  as  that  the  evil  will  wear  off  insensibly."  Quoting  this 
view  of  Jefferson,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  repeatedly  declared:  "Mr.  Jef 
ferson  did  not  mean  to  say,  nor  do  I,  that  the  power  of  emancipa 
tion  is  in  the  Federal  government.  He  spoke  of  Virginia,  and,  as 
to  the  power  of  emancipation,  I  speak  of  the  slave-holding  states 
only."  The  members  of  Lincoln's  party  in  Congress  had  gone  even 
further :  they  had  declared  the  eternal,  irrevocable  perpetuation  of 
the  existing  slavery.  In  his  inaugural  address  Mr.  Lincoln  said, 
"I  understand  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution — which 
amendment,  however,  I  have  not  seen — has  passed  Congress,  to 
the  effect  that  the  Federal  Government  shall  never  interfere  with 
the  domestic  institutions  of  the  slave  States,  including  that  of 
persons  held  to  service.  To  avoid  misconstruction  of  what  I  have 
said,  I  depart  from  my  purpose  not  to  speak  of  particular  amend 
ments  so  far  as  to  say  that,  holding  such  a  provision  to  now  be  im 
plied  constitutional  law,  I  have  no  objection  to  its  being  made 
expres's  and  irrevocable."68  The  existing  slavery  was  to  be  "irre 
vocably"  left,  and  with  it  was  also  to  be  left  the  so-called  liberty 
laws  of  the  various  Northern  States;  neither  he  as  the  incoming 
President  nor  his  party  in  Congress  intimated  that  the  South 


688Henry  Adams,  New  England  Federalism,  53. 

687Ib.,  58. 

8S8Beirs  Lincoln,  198. 


302  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

should  have  even  an  effort  at  better  protection  than  the  past  had 
afforded.  Just  before  the  above  statement  he  had  said,  "The  fugi 
tive  slave  clause  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  law  for  the  suppres 
sion  of  the  foreign  slave  trade,  are  each  as  well  enforced,  perhaps, 
as  any  law  can  ever  be  in  a  community  where  the  moral  sense  of 
the  people  imperfectly  supports  the  law  itself."  In  the  same  ad 
dress  he  declared  that  "no  right  plainly  written  in  the  Constitu 
tion"  had  been  denied  the  Southern  people.  He  and  his  party  as 
sumed  the -functions  of  government,  declaring  that  complaints  of 
the  Southern  people  were  "altogether  artificial"  and  without  "foun 
dation  in  fact";88"  and  that  there  was  no  "reasonable  cause  for  the 
apprehension"  that  the  accession  of  a  "Republican  administration 
would  endanger  their  property  and  their  peace  and  personal  se 
curity."65  Though  he  repeatedly  declared  that  the  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1850  was  Constitutional, — a  right  plainly  written  in  the  Con 
stitution, — yet  there  could  be  no  mistake  that  he  meant  to  make  no 
effort  to  deal  with  even  those  States  which  had  passed  laws  making 
it  criminal  to  obey  the  Federal  law.  These — the  real  menaces  to 
American  freedom — were  to  remain, — and  thus  receive  his  moral 
approval !  At  the  very  time  he  uttered  these  words  he  had  knowl 
edge  that  ten  Northern  States  had  passed  laws  with  no  other  object 
than  to  destroy  the  national  fugitive  slave  laws:  a  more  powerful 
denial  of  a  Constitutional  right,  the  abrogation  of  the  exercise  of  a 
"right  fixed  in  the  Constitution,"  could  not  be  found  short  of  open, 
actual  war.  He  knew  that  the  very  backbone  of  his  party  in  those 
States  fostered  a  public  sentiment  which  often  rendered  it  impos 
sible  to  enforce  Congressional  laws  resting  upon  provisions  which 
he  admitted  were  "plainly  written  in  the  Constitution."  He  had 
the  history  of  the  famous  Burns  fugitive  slave  case  before  him ;  he 
knew  that  the  manifestations  of  abolition  feeling  which  this  case 
excited  were  typical  and  representative  of  that  cherished  by  a  large, 
wealthy,  and  powerful  faction.  He  was  fully  aware  that  Northern 
rebellion  against  these  Congressional  laws  hounded  those  who  at 
tempted  to  execute  them,  just  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  pro 
bate  judge  and  United  States  commissioner  who  tried  Burns.  So 
persistently  did  the  abolitionists  besiege  the  legislature,  that  the 


•"Bell's  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Lincoln,  184. 
89<)Ib.,  188. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  303 

judge  was  finally  driven  from  his  office,  although  it  is  admitted 
that  "he  had  not  dealt  with  this  case  dishonorably."691  This  perse 
cution  of  admittedly  honorable  men,  and  this  rebellion  against 
laws  resting  upon  a  plain  provision  of  the  Constitution,  the  pro 
vision  iteelf  no  less  than  the  entire  Constitution  as  well  as  the  laws 
pursuant  thereto,  sustained  by  a  majority  of  over  two  millions  of 
the  sovereign  voters  of  the  Union, — were  notorious  facts.  Lincoln 
had  before  him  that  movement  which  had  brought  to  its  aid  thou 
sands  of  improved  rifles,  cannon, — organized  and  armed  sedition 
against  local  government  and  rebellion  against  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment, — theft  and  murder  until  Kansas  became  a  stench;  he 
knew  that  the  avowed  purpose  of  this  movement  was  to  interfere 
with  the  legal  institutions  and  internal  affairs  of  the  existing 
Southern  States, — an  attempt  to  throttle  the  control  of  the  bona 
fide  citizens  over  an  institution  which  both  he  and  his  party  de 
clared  they  were  willing  to  see  "made  express  and  irrevocable." 
By  no  means  did  these  reach  the  end.  In  conclusion,  I  submit 
some  facts  which  I  maintain  were  conclusive  evidence  that  the 
violations  of  these  various  admitted  rights  were  rapidly  gathering 
to  their  support  the  assassin  as  well  as  open  and  perhaps  more  hon 
orable  war.  When  the  President  and  his  Congressional  majority 
refused  to  enforce  all  laws  of  the  land,  or  sat  with  folded  hands 

,  under  a  plea  of  inability,  they  not  only  allowed  the  dangers  to  go 
unchecked,  but  thus  accelerated  what  was  already  imminent. 

(5)  Judging  by  the  position  which  Lincoln  and  his  party  had 
assumed  with  reference  to  Kansas  questions  and  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  it  was.  a  legitimate  and  reasonable  conclusion  that  the  fight 
they  were  making  was  not  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  negro, 
but  one  which  would  continue  to  be  prosecuted  for  ends  entirely 
subversive  of  and  regardless  of  existing  laws,  judicial  decisions,  or 
constitutions.  Going  back  a  few  weeks  to  the  platform  upon  which 
Lincoln  was  elected,  we  find  this  same  party,  then  grown  strong, 

'reasserting  the  old  balance  of  power  theory  of  government — a 
theory  which  had  fostered  Northern  opposition  to  the  acquisition 
of  all  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi  river — and  with  this  doc 
trine  re-affirming  the  legal  status  of  slavery  thus : 


891Schouler.  Hist.  U.  S..  Vol.  V.,  295.  Mr.  Schouler  tells  us  that  Burns  was 
kindly  treated  by  his  master,  and  that  shortly  after  this  famous  trial  his  fret- 
dom  was  purchased  and  he  returned  to  the  North.  Ib.,  Note. 


304  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

"Resolved,  That  the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of  the 
States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each  State  to  order  and  control 
its  own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment  ex 
clusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  per 
fection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  depends;  and  we  de 
nounce  the  lawless  invasion  by  armed  force  of  the  soil  of  any  State 
or  Territory,  no  matter  under  what  pretext,  as  among  the  gravest 
of  crimes."0" 

To  read  this  without  connecting  it  with  existing  conditions, 
would  seem  to  show  that  the  Southern  States  had  every  assurance 
needed.  The  legality  of  their  slavery  was  admitted ;  and,  as  I  have 
said,  afterward  the  same  party  in  Congress  declared  their  willing 
ness  to  perpetuate  it;  the  State's  exclusive  right  to  control  it  was 
admitted;  but  these  stopped  short  of  the  trouble.  The  South  was 
flooded  with  insurrectionary  literature,  her  internal  peace  had  been 
stolen  by  interference  outside  her  borders;  each  year  hundreds  o<f 
thousands  of  dollars — not  theoretically,  but  literally — were  stolen 
by  the  increasing  underground  railroad ;  and  all  this  had  been  and 
continued  to  be  fostered,  encouraged,  and  protected  by  the  ad 
mittedly  unconstitutional  laws  of  the  free  States.  All  that  this 
declaration  did  wras  to  state  the  wrell-known  legal  status  of  slavery, 
and  then  not  only  to  leave  unchecked  the  insane  Northern  wave 
which  had  broken  in  bloody  billows  over  the  homes  of  Southern  men 
in  Kansas,  but  by  force  of  its  very  narrowness  it  gave  accelerated 
impetus  to  all  classes  and  kinds  o<f  opposition  to  slavery — with 
results  to  which  I  shall  soon  call  attention  in  conclusion. 

We  have  seen  how  events  had  placed  Kansas  at  the  feet  of  the 
National  Government.  Questions  affecting  the  rights  of  the  States, 
questions  involving  the  right  of  emigration  to  United  States  ter 
ritory  with  this  property  which  was  admitted  to  exist  legally,  had 
arisen.  These  questions  must  be  decided  some  way,  by  some  con 
stituted  and  recognized  authority.  Our  fathers  had  prepared  for 
such  an  emergency,  and  for  this  purpose  the  Supreme  Court  of- 
the  United  States  had  been  established.  The  greatest  of  Northern 
Senators,  Daniel  Webster,  of  Massachusetts,  but  ten  years  before 
Lincoln's  partisan  contention,  said,  "No  higher  judicial  tribunal 
exists  than  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  ...  It  is  the 


8MT.  H.  McKee,  Platforms  of  All  Parties,  68. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  305 

expounder  of  fundamental  principles  of  government;  it  is  the  ap 
pointed  umpire  on  questions  of  the  profoundest  interest  and  most 
enduring  consequences  between  conflicting  sovereignties.  The 
American  people,  if  they  are  wise,  will  ever  cherish  it  as  their  most 
valued  possession,  since  its  duration  will  be  co-existent  with  that 
of  the  Constitution,  of  which  it  is  the  sole  interpreter."693  And 
again  he  said,  "The  judges  "[of  the  Supreme  Court]  are  called  upon 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  acts  of  independent  States ;  they  con 
trol  the  will  of  sovereignties;  they  are  liable  to  be  exposed /there 
fore,  to  the  resentment  of  wounded  sovereign  pride;  and  from  the 
very  nature  of  our  system,  they  are  sometimes  called  on,  also,  to 
decide  whether  Congress  has  not  exceeded  its  constitutional 
limit's."65  This  final  arbiter  of  disputes  between  the  States  must 
decide  in  favor  of  the  one  side  or  the  other :  it  had  decided  in  favor 
of  the  Southern  contention;  and  this  contention  and  decision  had 
been  and  continued  to  be  backed  by  a.  majority  of  the  whole  voting 
freemen  of  America.  Here  was  the  arbiter  established  by  the  sov 
ereign  power  in  the  nation  speaking,  and  the  sovereign  voice  of  the 
people  themselves  answered  back  in  approval.  If  our  government 
was  anything  whatever  it  was  republican — democratic.  When  the 
minority  refused  submission,  that  position  was  none  other  than 
revolutionary,  was  nothing  less  than  incipient  rebellion.  This 
was  exactly  what  Lincoln  and  his  party  did;  and  that  he  and  his 
party  were  a  minority  of  both  the  whole  people  and  of  the  whole 
number  of  voters  in  the  Union  or  in  the  States  collectively,  there 
can  be  no  question,— and  this  was  true  even  down  to  and  after  the 
withdrawal  of  the  South.  While  the  other  parties  avowed  they 
would  "abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  on  questions  of  constitutional  law,"  Lincoln  and  his  party 
plainly  said  that  they  would  keep  up  the  agitation  until  the  Su 
preme  Court  decided  as  they  dictated. 

In  Aug.,  1856,  and  while  the  country  anxiously  awaited  the  Dred 
Scott  decision,  Lincoln  said,  "The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  is  the  tribunal  to  decide  such  a  question,  and  we  will  sub 
mit  to  its  decisions ;  and  if  you  do  also,  there  will  be  an  end  of  the 
matter.  Will  you?  If  not,  who  are  the  disunionists — you  or 

'"Webster's  Works,  Vol.   II.,  402-3. 
6MIb.,  Vol.  III.,  163. 
20 


306  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

we?""  Most  certainly  he  had  in  mind  a  political,  non-agitative 
submission;  no  fair  construction  can  get  anything  else  out  of  his 
attitude.  The  country  was  bleeding  from  the  restless  tossing  engen 
dered  by  the  questions  before  the  court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  The 
court  applied  the  remedy.  It  was  unpalatable  to  the  Lincoln  peo 
ple;  no  time  was  lost  in  breaking  former  pledges.  Hear  him  Oct. 
1,  1858 :  "We  oppose  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  a  certain  way  .  .  . 
not ...  in  any  violent  way  to  disturb  the  rights  of  property  thus  set 
tled  ;  but  we  oppose  that  decision  as  a  political  rule."  "The  Presi 
dent  and  Congress"  were  "not  to  be  bound  by  it" ;  and  more,  "we 
propose  so  resisting  it  as  to  have  a  reversal  of  it  if  we  can,  and  a 
new  judicial  rule  established  upon  the  subject."0'  It  was  plain  to 
see  where  this  would  lead.  If  it  were  their  right  to  refuse  to  sub 
mit  until  their  views  prevailed,  it  would  have  been  equally  the  right 
of  the  opposition  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  so  ad  infinitum.  This 
position  destroyed  the  very  foundation  of  the  American  Govern 
ment.  (See  Notes  for  Northern  action  on  Dred  Scott  case.) 

Ignoring  the  fact  that  nature,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  had  de 
creed  that  slavery  could  never  become  national,  or  even  to  any  con 
siderable  extent  approximately  so,  in  area,  Lincoln  and  his  party 
excited  the  populace  with  the  unfounded  alarm  that  the  Dred  Scott 
decision  was  one  of  a  series  that  would  soon  establish  slavery  in  the 
then  free  States.  Thi's  was  clearly  a  political  subterfuge  by  which 
it  was  hoped  the  Supreme  Court  would  be  forced  to  yield  to  popu 
lar  clamor  until  in  the  reversal  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  it  should 
be  decided  that  Congress  could  not  legalize  slavery  in  a  Territory 
nor  permit  the  people  thereof  themselves  to  do  so.  Such  a  conten 
tion  meant  that  all  future  Territories  should  be  settled  largely  by 
Northern  men  and  their  local  polity  shaped  in  accord  with  the  gen 
erally  prevailing  politics  of  New  England ;  and  the  groundless  rea 
son  urged  before  the  people  served  to  give  the  unthinking  anti- 
slavery  populace  moral  support  in  the  belief  that  slavery  was  to  be 
fought  at  "all  hazards"  and  with  any  weapon. 

A  true  Southerner  would  be  as  unwilling  to  speak  harshly  of 
President  Lincoln  as  of  any  honored  and  distinguished  man.  Lin 
coln  was  not  only  born  'south  of  Mason  and  Dixon  line,  but  his 


893Bell's  Lincoln,  93. 
•MIb.,  128-9. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  307 

grandfather  was  a  Virginian.  His  earlier  ancestors  were  Quakers 
who  came  originally  from  Europe  to  Berks  county,  Pennsylvania.9" 
Of  his  sterling  manhood  and  unfeigned  Southern  chivalry,  the 
Southern  people  have  a  sincere  appreciation.  We  recognize  his 
honesty  of  purpose.  Our  recognition  of  his  rugged  manhood,  how 
ever,  does  not  blind  us  to  the  sophistry  of  his  logic  and  the  conse 
quent  unsoundness  of  his  conclusions;  nor  cause  us  to  lose  sight  of 
the  unyielding  and  fanatical  tenacity  with  which  he  clung  to  those 
conclusions — thus  exhibiting  all  the  peculiar,  erratic,  characteris 
tics  of  his  Quaker  ancestry.  In  reply  to  Judge  Stephen  A.  Doug 
las,  Mr.  Lincoln  thus  stated  the  contention  and  position  upon  which 
he  went  into  power : 

"The  judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  to  the 
exclusive  right  which  the  States  have  to  decide  the  whole  thing  for 
themselves.  I  agree  with  him  very  readily  that  the  different  States 
have  that  right,  He  is  but  fighting  a  man  of  straw  when  he  assumes 
that  I  am  contending  against  the  right  of  the  States  to  do  as  they 
please  about  it.  Our  controversy  with  him  is  in  regard  to  the  new 
Territories.  We  agree  that  when  the  States  come  in  as  States  they 
have  the  right  and  the  power  to  do  as  they  please.  We  have  no 
power  as  citizens  of  the  free  States,  or  in  our  federal  capacity  as 
members  of  the  Federal  Union  through  the  General  Government, 
to  disturb  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  We  profess  con 
stantly  that  we  have  no  more  inclination  than  belief  in  the 
power  of  the  government  to  disturb  it ;  yet  we  are  driven  constantly 
to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assumption  that  we  are  warring  upon 
the  rights  of  the  States.  What  I  insist  upon  is,  that  the  new  Terri 
tories  shall  be  kept  free  from  it  while  in  the  territorial  condition. 
Judge  Douglas  assumes  that  we  have  no  interest  in  them — that  we 
have  no  right  whatever  to  interfere.  I  think  we  have  some  inter 
est.  I  think  that  as  white  men  we  have.  Do  we  not  wish  for  an 
outlet  for  our  surplus  population,  if  I  may  so  express  myself  ?  Do 
we  not  feel  an  interest  in  getting  to  that  outlet  with  such  institu 
tions  as  we  would  like  to  have  prevail  there  ?  .  .  .  I  am  in  favor  of 
our  new  Territories  being  in  such  a  condition  that  white  men  may 
find  a  home — may  find  some  spot  where  they  can  better  their  con 
dition — where  they  can  settle  upon  new  soil  and  better  their  condi- 

•"Nicolay  &  Hoy's  Lincoln's  Works,  596. 


308  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

tion  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  not  merely  (I  must  say  it  here  as 
I  have  elsewhere)  for  our  own  people  who  are  born  among  us,  but 
an  outlet  for  free  white  people  everywhere,  the  world  over."6' 

That  was  exactly  what  the  Southern  people  alleged  to  be  unfair, 
and  the  position  of  which  they  complained.  In  the  Dred  Scott  case 
the  Supreme  Court,  the  arbiter  of  last  resort,  had  said  jurisdiction 
of  slavery  should  and  did  rest  with  the  territorial  government  just 
as  it  did,  as  Lincoln  and  his  party  admitted,  with  the  State  govern 
ments.  Every  Territory  in  the  Union  up  to  I860 — Xorth  and 
South — had  exercised  jurisdiction  over  and  a,t  will  legalized  or  re 
jected  slavery.  To  keep  slaveholders  and  their  property  away  until 
Statehood,  meant,  of  course,  to  give  the  anti-negro  party  a  clear 
field.  It  simply  discriminated  against  Southern  people  and 
hemmed  them  within  narrow  and  old  existing  borders,  while  it  gave 
an  "outlet  for  free  white  people  everywhere,  the  world  over," — pro 
vided  they  were  not  Southern  slaveholders.  In  effect,  this  wras  what 
the  Supreme  Court  said  was  contrary  to  the  Constitution  and  out 
of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  our  government;  and  this  judicial 
opinion  was  reflected  by  a  majority  in  Congress  for  ten  years,  and 
sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  nearly  one  million  popular  votes  in  the 
election  of  1860.  Webster,  whom  the  North  called  the  great  De 
fender  because  of  his  watchfulness  of  the  Constitution,  said : 

"We  must  take  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  as  it  has  been 
solemnly  fixed, — fixed  by  practice,  fixed  by  successive  acts  of  Con 
gress,  fixed  by  solemn  judicial  decision, — or  we  never  shall  have  any 
settled  meaning  at  all.  It  is  absurd  to  say,  that  no  precedent,  no 
practice,  no  judicial  decision,  no  assent  of  successive  legislators,  nor 
all  these  together,  can  fix  the  meaning  of  an  article  in  the  funda 
mental  law."8' 

I  have  given  a  brief  outline  of  slave  legislation  in  the  several 
Territories  in  order  to  show  that  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution 
concerning  Territorial  as  well  as  State  jurisdiction  had  been  "fixed 
by  practice,  fixed  by  successive  acts  of  Congress/'  fixed  "by  assent 
of  successive  legislators,"  and  finally  "fixed  by  solemn  judicial  de 
cision"  ;  all  these  together  had  united  to  determine  the  fundamental 
law. 


898Ib.,  507-8. 

""Works  (Boston,  1860),  Vol.  II.,  1«4. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  309 

• 

Nebraska  Territory  was  created  at  the  same  time  as  was  Kansas. 
Popular  sovereignty — the  right  of  the  people  of  the  Territory  to 
legalize  or  reject  slavery,  and  determine  all  purely  local  interests, 
as  their  majority  decreed — pertained  to  Nebraska  just  as  it  did  to 
Kansas.  Nebraska's  Territorial  government  was  organized  and 
peaceably  at  work  months  before  that  of  Kansas.  Her  prairies 
were  as  rich  and  her  resources  as  varied  as  were  those  of  Kansas. 
There  was  ample  room  there  for  "free  whites/'  and  that,  too,  where 
the  history  of  the  Northwest  had  taught  that  slavery  could  not  sur 
vive.  If  Lincoln's  party  were  sincere  in  their  profession  of  a  desire 
for  a  home  for  free  white  men,  they  should  have  gone  to  Nebraska'. 
That  they  rushed  past  it  and  infested  Kansas  with  armed  men ;  that 
even  before  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  money  and  or 
ganizations  were  ready  to  crowd  New  Englanders  into  Kansas 
borders,  will  ever  remain  unimpeachable  evidence  that  it  was  a 
political  move  in  the  interest  of  Northern  power, — and  a  movement 
entirely  devoid  of  any  philanthropic  outlook  for  the  Southern 
slave, — not  even  the  free  negro  or  mulatto  was  to  invade  this  new 
centre  of  American  "freedom."  The  avowed  purpose  of  Lincoln 
and  his  party  was  to  seek  a  home  and  an  outlet  for  themselves — for 
"free  white  men"  only;  note  his  words — the  negro  was  to  be  left 
in  his  bondage,  while  the  excited  scramble  for  the  Territories,  fed 
upon  abuse  of  an  institution  which  they  said  should  be  made  irre 
vocable,  was  left  to  go  on  unmolested  to  fire  the  brain  of  the  white 
insurrectionists,  and  to  engender  repetitions  of  the  Kansas  scenes. 

We  are  not  left  to  the  words  alone  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  In  the  plat 
form  of  the  party  which  nominated  and  elected  him,  they  further 
declared,  section  one,  that  "all  men  are  created  equal."  In  section 
eleven  of  this  same  platform,  they  declared,  "That  Kansas  should 
of  right  be  immediately  admitted  a  State  under  the  Constitution 
recently  formed  and  adopted  by  her  people  and  accepted  by  the 
House  of  Representatives/5  Just  before  this  they  branded  the  work 
of  the  authorized  Kansas  legislature  as  the  "infamous  Lecompton 
Constitution.''  Why  did  they  stigmatize  this  Constitution  as  "in 
famous?"  For  no  other  reason  than  that  it  refused  to  recognize 
the  legal  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man.  The  Southern 
people  said  that  the  inequality  of  the  negro  must  be  recognized  to 
a  certain  extent  for  the  protection  of  the  higher  class.  What  were 


310  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

• 

the  provisions  of  that  Constitution  which  that  party,  which  parades 
as  the  champion  both  of  freedom  and-  as  the  liberator  of  the  slave, 
thus  in  its  platform  so  unequivocally  endorsed?  The  Constitution 
to  which  they  referred  was  that  one  claimed  to  have  been  ratified 
by  the  people  of  Kansas  October  4,  1859,  and  accepted  by  the  House 
of  Representatives  April  12,  I860,700  just  a  short  time  before  the 
Republican  convention.  This  Constitution  declared  the  right  of 
governments  to  create  inequalities  in  that  it  created  an  in 
equality  —  made  a  discrimination  —  against  the  negro  and  in  favor 
of  the  abolitionists.  It  gave  the  elective  franchise  to  "white  male 
persons"  only,  and  such  only  could  hold  office/01  Thus  again,  as 
in  the  Republican-abolition  endorsed  Topeka  constitution,  when  it 
came  to  questions  between  himself  and  the  negro,  the  Northern 
abolitionist  drew  back;  and  just  as  did  Massachusetts  and  other 
older  States  of  New  England,  just  as  did  those  who  enforced  the 
cruel  expulsion  laws  of  New  England  made  Ohio,  just  as  did  the 
Northern  element  in  the  newer  northwest  —  the  great  Oregon  Terri 
tory,  a  social  and  political  inequality  was  declared  in  favor  of  the 
white  man.  The  want  of  fairness  did  not  stop  at  this  position; 
even  much  more  than  a  want  of  fairness  was  unmistakable.  This 
Kansas  constitution,  which  this  party  in  its  Chicago  declaration 
of  principles  thus  endorsed,  was  no  more  legal  than  the  Topeka 
constitution  —  not  a  particle  more  than  if  it  had  been  made  in  G-er- 
many  and  ratified  by  German  citizens.  By  the  law  of  Congress,  ap 
proved  May  4,  1858,  which  was  known  as  the  English  bill,  the 
Lecompton  or  authorized  constitution  was  declared  republican  and 
approved,  and  under  it  Kansas  was  admitted  a  State,  without 
further  act  of  Congress  what/ever,  on  the  simple  condition  that  this 
"ordinance  formed  at  Lecompton"  be  re-submitted  to  a  vote  of  the 
people,  with  which  were  some  non-party  conditions  relating  to 
public  lands.  The  law  provided  that  if  by  vote  of  the  citizens  of 
Kansas,  or  their  failure  to  vote,  this  proposition  was  rejected,  then, 
at  any  time  thereafter,  it  empowered  the  people  to  hold  proper  elec 
tions  at  which  they  should  choose  delegates  to  a  constitutional  con 
vention,  "whenever,  and  not  before,  it  is  ascertained  by  a  census 
duly  and  legally  taken  that  the  population  of  the  said  Territory 


™°Appendix  Cong.  Globe,  1  sess.,  36  Cong.,  pt.  2,  1669. 
T01U.  S.  Charts,  and  Consts.,  636. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  311 

equals  or  exceeds  the  ratio  of  representation  required  for  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States ;  and  whenever  thereafter  such  delegates  shall  assemble  in 
convention,  they  shall  first  determine  by  a  vote  whether  it  is  the  wish 
of  the  people  of  the  proposed  state  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union 
at  that  time."7'  It  was  admitted  that  neither  had  this  census  thus 
required  been  taken,  nor  was  the  population  thus  required  in  the 
Territory  either  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  this  last  constitu 
tion  or  at  the  time  it  was  being  endorsed  by  the  Republican  con 
vention, — nor  had  the  law  been  repealed.  To  admit  Kansas  under 
this  Constitution  was  to  do  so  in  defiance  of  existing  Federal  law. 
Thus  another  evidence  was  given  the  South  of  the  contempt  in 
which  the  laws  of  Congress  were  held  by  the  anti-slavery  party 
whose  candidate  was  just  going  to  a  position  of  great  power  and 
influence. 

Not  only  was  the  position  of  Lincoln  and  the  party  which  elected 
him  ludicrously  inconsistent,  but  the  gravity  of  this  very  incon 
sistency  gave  assurance  to  the  abolition  North  and  evidence  to  a 
fearful  South  that  all  the  gross  illegalities  and  interferences  of  the 
disturbing  fanatics  would  be  continued.  Boldly  in  Congress  or 
before  popular  gatherings  influential  Northern  leaders  boasted  of 
the  Kansas  record,  predicted  the  invasion  of  the  Southern  States, 
declared  that  the  interests  of  the  white  labor  demanded  immediate 
emancipation,  and  affirmed  that  unless  the  demands  of  this  party 
were  at  once  met  they  would  be  enforced  hurriedly  and  with  dis 
aster  and  violence.  March  3,  1858,  in  the  Senate  Mr.  Seward  said,. 
"Free  labor  has  at  last  apprehended  its  rights,  its  interests,  its 
power,  and  its  destiny;  and  is  organizing  itself  to  assume  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  Republic.  It  will  henceforth  meet  you  boldly  and 
resolutely  here  [in  Congress]  ;  it  will  meet  you  everywhere — wher 
ever  you  go  to  extend  slavery.  It  has  driven  you  back  in  California 
and  in  Kansas;  it  will  invade  you  soon  in  Delaware,  Maryland,. 
Virginia,  Missouri,  and  Texas.  The  invasion  will  be  not  merely 
harmless,  but  beneficial  if  you  yield  seasonably  to  its  just  and 
moderate  demands.  .  .  .  The  interests  of  the  white  race  demand 
the  ultimate  emancipation  of  all  men.  Whether  that  consumma 
tion  shall  be  allowed  to  take  effect,  with  needful  and  wise  precau- 


782App.  Cong.  Globe.  35  Cong.,  1  sess.,  553. 


312  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

tions  against  sudden  change  and  disaster,  or  be  hurried  on  by  vio 
lence,  is  all  that  remains  for  you  to  decide.  .  .  .  The  white  man 
needs  this  continent  to  labor  upon.  He  must  and  will  have  it."70' 
Thus  all  things  made  it  plain  that  in  the « coming  administration 
as  against  the  negro  the  Southern  white  man  had  no  security  for 
his  rights ;  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  as  against  the  abolitionists 
find  those  who  were  fighting  for  what  they  called  "a  free  State," 
the  negro  had  no  rights, — with  reference  to  the  New  Englander  or 
the  emigrating  abolitionist  the  negro  was  declared  and  held  an 
inferior  being  who  was  not  entitled  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness  or 
the  exercise  of  political  powers.  In  this  connection,  let  me  look 
back  again  a  moment  at  the  important  and  significant  record  of 
the  Lincoln  party. 

The  Thirty-fourth  Congress  was  the  first  in  which  the  Repub 
lican  party,  which  was  then  soon  to  nominate  Lincoln,  began  to 
secure  ascendency.  They  had  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  over  the  Democratic  party,  which  was  the  party  who 
favored  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  which  had  pledged  itself  to 
abide  by  the  Constitution,  the  majority  voice  of  the  people,  and  to 
protect  in  their  admitted  rights  the  Southern  people.  This  Con- 
.gress  held  its  first  session  December  3,  1855,  and  closed  its  last  and 
third  March  3,  1857.  The  Republican  party  and  its  representa 
tives  in  this  Congress  endorsed  what  is  known  as  the  Topeka  con 
stitution,  and  made  a  strong  effort  to  admit  Kansas  a  State  under 
iit,  at  the  same  time  endorsing  the  rebellious  government  which  had 
created  the  constitution.  To  this  end  they  passed  a  bill  through 
the  House.™  The  position  taken  with,  reference  to  the  negro  by 
this  Lincoln-Republican  endorsed  Topeka  constitution,  gave  the 
most  conclusive  evidence  that  this  party  was  making  a  political 
fight  against  the  South,  and  not  a  fight  against  slavery,  and  a  fight 
wholly  devoid  of  any  Christian  OT  enlightened  consideration  for 
the  negro.  Anything  was  indicated  other  than  that  they  desired  or 
were  willing  to  give  the  negro  equal  opportunities  with  themselves 
or  Northern  emigrants.  The  Topeka  constitution,  the  insurrec 
tionary  and  rebellious  legislature,  and  those  who  endorsed  them, 


703Cong.  Globe,  35  Cong.,  1  sess.,  Mch.  3,  dated  on  5th,  1858,  944  ;  App.  C.  G., 
36  Cong.,  1  sess.,  83. 

7"Spring.  Hist.  Kans.,  77. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  313 

put  themselves  as  strongly  against  the  negro  as  against  the  slave 
owners.  Section  one  of  the  Topeka  constitution  begins  by  declar 
ing  :  "All  men  are  by  nature  free  and  independent,  and  have  certain 
inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  those  of  enjoying  and  defend 
ing  life  and  liberty,  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property, 
and  seeking  and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety.""  No  combina 
tion  of  words  ever  carried  a  greater  deception.  The  book  from 
which  I  quote  this  is  the  compilation  lyy  Ben.  Perley  Poore,  acting 
under  an  order  of  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is  as  nearly  an  offi 
cial  collection  of  our  charters  and  constitutions  as  any  existing 
publication.  But  owing  to  a  crafty  manipulation  at  the  hands  of 
the  Topeka  constitutional  convention,  of  the  various  fundamental 
provisions  for  their  proposed  State,  that  body  managed  to  segre 
gate  the  expatriation  feature  from  the  immediate  wording  of  the 
Topeka  constitution.  The  document  accompanied  by  a  memorial 
from  the  convention,  was  carried  to  Washington  and  presented  to 
Congress  by  James  Lane,  of  the  Kansas  insurgents.  The  document 
itself  was  in  a  most  depleted  condition;  its  numerous  erasures  and 
interlineations  were  most  unsightly.  The  signatures  intended  for 
the  memorial  accompanying  the  document  were  all  in  the  same 
hand  ;m  and  altogether  its  appearance  so  belied  its  genuineness  that 
its  bearer  had  a  hard  time  to  convince  Congress  of  its  authenticity. 
He  made  an  affidavit,™  saying  that  the  phraseology  of  the  so-called 
legislative  memorial  needed  alteration,  and  that  corrections  and 
revisions  were  made  by  private  parties  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
convention.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Poore  did  not  find  it  in  the 
wording  which  he  gives,  the  anti-negro  sentiment  and  force  were 
unquestionably  in  the  Topeka  constitution.  Prof.  Spring,  in 
Prof.  Schudder^s  Commonwealth's  Series,  concerning  the  anti- 
negro  features  of  this  constitution,  says  that  "though  not  literally 
a  part  of  the  constitution,  would  have  the  same  effect  as  if  they 
had  been  incorporated  in  it."7C  Dr.  Richard  Cordley,  by  no  means 
Southern  in  his  proclivities,  before  the  Kansas  Historical  Society, 
in  1882,  said,  "...  they  proposed  to  exclude  negroes  as  well  as 
slavery  from  the  territory.  Thus  was  introduced  into  the  platform 

T»»U.  S.  Chas.  and  Cons.,  580. 

™App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  subj.:    Kansas  Affairs. 

70TIb.,  383. 

"•Hist.  Kansas,  76. 


314  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

of  the  free-State  party  that  black-law  plank  which  appears  in  all 
its  after  history,  and  which  was  the  only  serious  blemish  in  the 
Topeka  constitution/'70  Governor  Walker  in  his  inaugural  address 
to  the  Kansas  citizens  on  May  27,  1857,  said,  "Those  who  oppofee 
slavery  in  Kansas  do  not  base  their  opposition  upon  any  philan 
thropic  principles  or  any  sympathy  for  the  African  race.  For  in 
their  so-called  constitution,  formed  at  Topeka,  they  deem  that  en 
tire  race  so  inferior  and  degraded  a's  to  exclude  them  all  forever 
from  Kansas,  whether  they  be  bond  or  free,  thus  depriving  them  of 
all  rights  here,  and  denying  even  that  they  can  be  citizens  of  the 
United  States;  for,  if  they  are  citizens,  they  could  not  constitu 
tionally  be  exiled  or  excluded  from  Kansas.  Yet  such  a  clause, 
inserted  in  the  Topeka  constitution,  wa's  submitted  by  that  conven 
tion  for  a  vote  of  the  people,  and  ratified  here  by  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  anti-slavery  party."710  Another  pro-Northern  Kan- 
gas  historian,  Prof.  Charles  E.  Tuttle,  speaking  of  the  vote  on  the 
several  questions  which  were  submitted  by  the  Topeka  constitu 
tional  convention  to  the  free- State  people,  the  questions  being  so 
put  that  the  constitution  as  a  whole  might  be  adopted,  or  certain 
provisions  thereof  ratified  or  rejected,  of  which  the  expatriation  of 
free  colored  people  was  one,  says  the  constitution  "had  been  printed 
and  distributed  freely/'  so  that  all  knew  its  several  proposed  pro 
visions  and  the  several  questions  submitted  to  them  along  there 
with.  He  then  says  that  "on  the  question  whether  mulattoes  and 
negroes  shall  be  excluded  from  the  territory  .  .  .  2,231  ballots  were 
cast,  and  only  453,  or  seven  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  number 
polled  on  that  issue,  favored  the  residence  of  free  negroes  and  mu 
lattoes  in  the  territory.  ...  It  will  be  seen  that  more  votes  were 
polled  on  this  question,  for  and  against,  than  on  any  other  issue."71 
Mr.  Schouler  admits  the  force  of  this  anti-negro  provision.™ 
Hence,  1,778  philanthropic  (  !)  free-State  men  favored  constitu 
tional  expulsion  of — expatriation  of — free  men ! 

Eeferring  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Topeka  constitutional  con- 


709Kans.  Hist.  Cols.,  Vol.  V..  44. 
"°Ib.,  339. 

•"New  Cent.  Hist,  of  the  State  of  Kansas  (Madison,  Wis..  and  Lawrence,  Kan., 
1876),  279. 

"2Hist.  TJ.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  p.  332. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  315 

vention,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  anti-free  negro  provision  was 
managed  as  follows : 

The  purpose  for  which  the  convention  met  was  "to  frame  a  con 
stitution,  adopted  a  bill  of  rights  for  the  people  of  Kansas,  and 
take  all  needful  steps  toward  the  foundation  of  a  State  government 
preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union."  The 
delegates  to  this  convention  came  together  clothed  with  this 
authority  by  virtue  of  the  express  will  of  their  constituency,  the 
free-State-abolitionists.713  Pursuant  to  this  authority  from  those 
they  represented,  the  delegates  met,  adopted  a  bill  of  rights,  a  con 
stitution,  and  ordered  that  at  the  same  time  and  along  with  the 
constitution  a  vote  be  taken,  "such  vote  to  operate  as  instructions 
to  the  first  general  assembly,"  directing,  if  the  majority  vote  so 
orders,  "the  passage  of  laws  by  the  general  assembly  providing  for 
the  exclusion  of  free  negroes  from  the  State  of  Kansas."7"  This 
was  as  much  a  part  of  the  "foundation  of  a  State  government"  as 
any  act  that  that  body  performed ;  it  was  done  "preparatory  to  the 
admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union."  Congress  and  the  world 
thus  had  notice  that  the  Topeka  constitution  came  to  them  resting 
upon  the  expatriation  of  freemen  as  one  of  its  primary  corner 
stones. 

This  was  the  fundamental  principle,  let  us  not  forget,  for  which 
the  Xorth  had  poured  out  her  men  and  treasure;  for  which  Eli 
Thayer,  once  a  Massachusetts  representative  in  Congress,  had 
passed  "like  a  naming  meteor"  throughout  the  Xorth ;  "it  was  the 
principle  for  which  Rev.  Theo.  Parker  took  a  Sunday  collection 
in  his  church ;  it  was  a  recognized  object  in  all  the  Kansas  insur 
rection.  It  was  Lincoln's  announced  doctrine:  "A  home  for  free 
whites  only."  It  was  a  diametrical  contradiction  to  the  first  sec 
tion  of  the  Topeka.  document:  "all  men  are  by  nature  free  and  inde 
pendent"  and  "all  men  have  the  inalienable  right  to  seek  happi 
ness  and  safety."  Whatever  else  freedom  may  imply,  no  one  can 
question  that  it  includes  a  right  to  emigrate— a  right  to  change 
allegiance  from  one  country  to  another— a  right  established  most 
certainly  on  behalf  of  free  Americans  and  those  from  other  juris 
dictions  who  desire  to  become  such,  when  we  forced  England  at 

713See  proceedings  of  convention  in  Evidence    651 
mlb.,  645. 


316  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

the  mouth  of  the  cannon  and  point  of  pike  to  sign  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent  in  concluding  the  war  of  1812.  No  less  forcibly  does  liberty 
imply  the  right  to  change  allegiance  from  one  State  in  our  Union 
to  another, — to  emigrate  wherever  the  "pursuit  of  happiness"  or 
the  hunt  for  "safety"  render's  advisable  or  desirable.  The  denial 
of  this  right  of  emigration  is  the  establishment  of  one  important 
essential  of  slavery.  A  denial  of  this  right  of  seeking  domicile  and 
"pursuit  of  happiness"  or  "safety"  to  any  class  of  individuals  is 
to  recognize  and  establish  an  inequality;  it  is  a  declaration  that 
some  class  has  superior  rights;  it  either  negatives  that  "all  men 
are  created  equal,"  or  admitting  such,  affirms  that  governments 
can  and  should  create  inequalities.  To  recognize  that  congenital 
inequalities  exist;  or  that,  in  their  discretion,  governments  may 
protect  one  class  to  the  disparagement  of  another,  is  to  affirm  that 
that  class  in  a  community  highest  in  the  scale  of  social,  intellect 
ual,  and  moral  development  may  protect  itself  regardless  of  the 
hardship  imposed  upon  the  less  fortunate  members  of  the  social 
body.  To  admit  the  right  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest — to  admit 
that  the  superior  class  in  a  State,  for  instance,  may  be  its  own 
judge  in  bestowing  social  and  political  rights — is  to  admit  the 
contention  of  the  slave-holding  South.  The  endorsement  by  the 
North  of  the  Topeka  constitution  and  its  fruits  in  Kansas,  and 
their  unqualified  endorsement  by  the  Lincoln  party,  brought  that 
party  in  their  selection  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency  with  none 
other  than  such  admissions;  and  in  a  plight  showing  a  battle 
against  the  South  for  Northern  political  supremacy, — regardless 
of  existing  laws,  regardless  of  a  yet  majority  supported  Constitu 
tion;  and  without  the  first  page  in  that  party's  history  containing 
a  ray  of  hope  to  those  of  all  people  then  most  in  need  of  a  friendly 
hand:  the  free  negro;  and  as  for  the  bondman,  the  clanking  of 
his  fetters,  they  declared,  might  irrevocably  well  an  answering 
chorus  to  that  more  hopeless  wail  which  rose  from  white-winged 
Northern  slavers  far  out  on  the  high  seas. 

(6)  The  next  great  cause,  which  I  shall  mention,  of  secession 
was  the  full  assurance  of  its  necessity  to  prevent  Northern-led 
slave  uprisings  with  their  inevitable  murder  and  desecration  of 
Southern  homes. 

Slave  insurrection  as  a  means  of  intimidating  the  South  was 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  317 

boldly  threatened  at  least  as  early  as  181.3.  Xorthern  people  then 
declared  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  North  would  ''appeal 
directly  to  her  strength,  and  to  the  fears  and  weal-ness  of  the  coun 
try  of  slaves."  Her  people  were  besought  "at  every  hazard  to 
apply  »the  needed  remedy."71 

Prof.  Siebert,  Fred.  Douglas,  and  some  other  writers,  claim  that 
the  depredations  of  the  underground  railroad  were  a  blessing  to 
the  South  in  that  the  dangerous  and  restless  spirits  were  removed. 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  ante-bellum  speeches  contended  that  the  dan 
gers  from  slave  uprisings  were  purely  creatures  of  the  imagination. 
Neither  of  these  positions  is  correct.  While  a  few  of  these  negroes 
who  were  stolen  or  enticed  away  North  were  dangerous,  yet  the' 
danger  to  the  South  lay  in  the  lead  of  white  Northerners,  and  the 
assurance  of  aid  and  sympathy  which  the  underground  movement 
and  the  so-called  personal  liberty  laws  gave  the  negro.  It  was 
the  lead  of  intelligent  white  Northerners,  backed  by  Northern 
capital,  contributed  by  numerous  substantial  Northern  citizens, 
which  made  the  danger  to  the  Southern  home  and  its  inmates 
imminent  and  real. 

Stories  of  St.  Domingo's  fate  at  the  hands  of  insurrectionary 
slaves,  or  the  promise  of  protection  and  encouragement  at  the 
hands  of  white  men,  had,  in  many  instances,  given  the  South — 
not  a  theory,  or  conjecture,  or  hysterical  fear,  but  evidence  of  what 
such  things  would  lead  her  slaves  to  do.  I  need  here  to  call  atten 
tion  to  only  a  few  representative  instances.  I  have  mentioned  the 
insurrection  in  South  Carolina  in  which  fifteen  miles  of  country 
were  laid  in  ashes  and  death  dealt  out  to  the  helpless  whites — the 
undoubted  result  of  incitation  by  the  Spanish  then  in  Florida. 
An  early  one  of  importance  was  led  by  white  men  in  1800."'  In 
Southampton  county,  Virginia,  in  1831,  accompanied  by  six  of 
his  fellows,  Nat  Turner,  a  brainy  negro  with  insane  hallucinations, 
started  to  rouse  the  negroes  to  slay  the  whites.  His  band  increased 
rapidly,  "and  in  two  days  fifty-five  white  men  were  murdered." 
"Swiftly  and  stealthy  as  Indians,  the  black  men  passed  from  house 
to  house,  not  pausing,  not  hesitating,  as  their  terrible  work  went 
on,  ...  that  blow  fell  on  man,  woman,  and  child, — nothing  that 


"•Pol.  Pamp.,  Vol.  CX..  Slave  Rep.,  p.  1 :  Lib.  Cong. 
"•Richmond   (Va.)   Recorder,  April  3,  6,  and  9.   1803. 


318  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

had  a  white  skin  was  spared."71  In  Louisiana  "with  the  begin 
ning  of  1811  came  another  insurrection  of  the  slaves  of  the  parish 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  thirty-six  miles  above  New  Orleans.  It 
was  as  barbaric  as  it  was  picturesque  and  horrible.  About  five 
hundred  of  these  half-savage  people  formed  themselves  into  a 
column,  and,  with  flags  flying,  marched  to  the  tune  of  wild  music 
made  by  blowing  into  reed  'quills'  and  by  beating  upon  iron  ket 
tles  and  other  sonorous  implement.  They  moved  directly  toward 
New  Orleans,  destroying  the  plantations  in  their  way  and  forcing 
the  slaves  to  join  them."73  After  much  excitement  and  damage, 
they  were  finally  suppressed  by  the  garrisons  of  Baton  Rouge  and 
Port  St.  Charles.  Of  another  occasion  the  same  author  says, 
"Rumor  of  the  revel  in  St.  Domingo  had  reached  the  ears  of  the 
slaves  on  the  plantations  of  Louisiana;  in  the  lonely  parish  of 
Pointe  Couple  the  dusky  half-savages  planned  a  massacre  of  their 
owners.  The  negroes  outnumbered  the  whites  in  this  parish,  and 
its  remote  situation  rendered  the  task  an  easy  one,  if  but  the  secret 
could  be  kept  until  the  blows  were  ready  to  fall.  It  is  hard  at 
this  time  [1888]  to  realize  the  awful  nature  of  the  peril  hanging 
over  the  scattered  and  helpless  families.  The  men  and  the  chil 
dren  were  to  be  killed  outright;  the  women  were  to  be  subjected  to 
a  fate  an  hundred-fold  more  horrible.  Everything  was  ready,  the 
plans  all  perfected,  when  by  the  merest  chance  (growing  out  of  a 
disagreement  among  the  leaders)  the  secret  was  divulged  and  the 
dreadful  deed  prevented."718  Not  without  influence  on  the  minds 
of  both  classes  were  the  results  of  the  slave  insurrection  in  the 
South  African  English  colonies  in  1823,  where  over  2,000  armed 
negroes,  led  by  determined  slaves,  swept  both  citizens  and  soldiers 
before  them,  and  spared  neither  man,  woman,  nor  child.  This, 
too,  in  an  instance  where  the  plot  was  discovered  some  hours  before 
the  outbreak  of  hostilities.720 

Encouraged  by  white  leaders,  and  armed  with  modern  guns  or 
deadly  pikes,  the  South  knew  that  an  uprising  meant  slaughter  of 
the  master  and  prostitution  of  the  women  and  girls  to  a  condition 

717T.  H.  Higginson,  Travelers  and  Outlaws  (Boston,  1889),  p.  287. 

718Maurice  Thompson,  The  Story  of  Louisiana,  195. 

719Ib.,    144-5. 

7IOJoshua  Bryant,  Negro  Insur.  in  Demerara   (Germantown,  S.  Af.,  1824). 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  319 

the  awfulness  of  which  the  mind  refuses  to  picture.  Under  the 
then  existing  conditions,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  with  every 
year  this  danger  increased.  John  Brown's  descent  upon  Harper's 
Ferry  brought  to  light  facts  confirming  this  belief  then  enter 
tained  in  the  South.  The  South  came  to  the  conclusion  that  what 
is  generally  called  secession  was  the  most  available  method  of 
checking  and  finally  averting  this  impending  evil.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  the  guilt  and  responsibility  for  the  results  lie  upon  those 
who  brought  about  so  dire  a  condition. 

The  sequence  of  cause  and  effect  may  readily  be  traced  through 
the  Northern  abolition-born  events  which  I  have  described,  to 
what  is  known  as  "John  Brown's  raid  at  Harper's  Ferry."  Brown 
received  his  early  prejudices  against  the  South  in  the  services  of 
the  underground  road;  the  emigrant  aid  organizations  produced, 
in  large  part,  the  Kansas  rebellion;  and  the  Kansas  rebellion 
developed  the  recklessness  and  unbalanced  thirst  for  slaughter 
characteristic  of  Brown  from  Pattowatomie  to  Harper's  Ferry. 
The  "liberty  laws"  in  nullification  of  the  Constitution  and  certain 
laws  of  Congress  passed  by  virtue  of  the  authority  thereof,  fos 
tered  a  public  sentiment  without  which  white  men  would  never 
have  attempted  to  lead  slave  insurrections.  The  immediate  results 
of  Brown's  Harper's  Ferry  affair  do  not  warrant  serious  histori 
cal  attention.  Brown  and  his  few  men,  unbacked  and  alone, 
might  be  treated  as  insignificant  figures.  As  the  representatives 
of  a  numerous  and  dangerous  class  they  become  important.  Brown 
gave  the  South  an  opportunity  to  confirm  what  she  believed  to  be 
the  real  position  of  the  North — that  is,  the  position  of  such  numer 
ous  and  increasing  body  of  influential  Northerners  that  we  can 
not  differentiate  them  from  the  North  as  a  section ;  and  hence  as  a 
section  for  them  she  became  responsible.  It  was  the  develop 
ments — the  incidents — the  manifestations,  with  which  latter 
Brown  had  no  personal  connection — these  make  his  "raid"  of  great 
evidential  importance  and  of  much  significance  in  ante-bellum  his 
tory. 

If  his  work  had  been  the  unaided  movement  of  a  few  fanatics, 
it  would  deserve  no  serious  place  in  history;  but  such  it  was  not. 
The  feculent  Northern  atmosphere  had  become  fecund  of  mental 
abrasions  capable  of  any  degree  of  criminality.  An  insane  mania 


320  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

was  rapidly  gathering  headway.  I  believe  this  statement  to  be 
the  unquestionable  verdict  of  history.  There  was  as  much 
money, — there  were  men  with  influence  as  powerful, — as  were 
behind  the  Kansas  insurrection,  in  aid  or  in  sympathy  with  such 
movements  as  Brown's  represented.  They  furnished  thousands 
of  guns,  an  army  of  men,  and  stood  for  years  in  Kansas  success 
fully  against  all  opposition.  What  such  men  had  done,  could 
again  be  done.  Many  of  the  men  who  helped  the  emigrant  aid 
movement,  which  had  more  than  once  premeditated  and  planned 
murder,721  and  the  entire  Kansas  rebellion,  were  the  same  men 
whose  money  and  influence  and  personal  encouragement  helped 
Brown  to  initiate  what  was  meant  to  be  war — slave  massacre  of 
whites  under  the  lead  of  Northern  whites. 

A  few  men,  even  one  man,  with  money,  brains,  and  tact  at  lead 
ership,  may  subvert  an  entire  section ;  instances  are  not  wanting 
in  which  an  entire  nation  has  been  thus  moved.  "More  clearly 
than  any  other  important  event  in  our  history  it  [the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill]  was  the  work  of  one  man — Douglas,"  declares  a 
historical  lecturer722  at  Harvard  University  in  1905.  The  reputed 
influence  of  Cutler  of  Massachusetts  before  the  Congress  which 
passed  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  and  many  other  similar  instances 
might  be  cited.  If  such,  then,  be  the  power  of  one  man,  what  may 
we  expect  of  many  having  a  common  purpose  and  working  at  the 
same  time, — especially  when  the  many  are  unscrupulous  and  have 
a  perverted  and  excited  popular  feeling  as  a  rich  field  of  sympathy 
and  support?  That  these . conditions  existed  in  increasing  num 
bers  and  imminence  from  the  inception  of  the  Northern  rebellion 
in  Kansas  down  to  secession  is  proven : — 

(1)  By  the  known  character  of  the  man  permitted  and  aided 
to  lead  the  initial  onslaught,  (2)  By  the  fact  that  Brown  and  the 
scheme  were  the  product  of  a  faction  sufficiently  strong  and  capa 
ble  of  doing  the  South  irreparable  damage;  and  that  this  is  true  is 
attested  by  the  prominence  and  ability  of  the  men  who  aided  and 
encouraged  him,  and  by  the  character  of  the  gatherings  which 
listened  to  his  appeals — no  one  or  more  of  which  made  an  effort  to 
check  the  gathering  storm.  (3)  By  the  fact  that  Brown  was  only 

721Boston  Transcript,  Dec.  4,  1884. 
722The  Lower  South,  103. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  321 

one  among  the  many  willing  aggressive  white  Northerners  who 
sought  an  opportunity  to  lead  the  slaves  in  insurrection;  and  that 
the  teachings  of  others  besides  Brown  declaring  the  righteousness 
of  slave  insurrection  received  the  endorsement  of  prominent  offi 
cials  and  other  Northern  citizens.  Thetee  facts  had  unusual  weight 
in  confirming  the  South  of  impending,  irreparable  calamity. 
(4)  The  number  and  character  of  the  white  men  who  partici 
pated  in  the  attack  at  Harper's  Ferry,  showed  that  white  leaders 
of  ability  were  to  be  found,  and  that  not  among  the  ignorant  and 
lowly,  but  from  the  intelligent  and  more  or  less  well-to-do  classes ; 
and  the  incidents  of  the  attack  were  proof  of  the  desperateness 
of  the  insurgents.  (5)  The  most  conclusive  evidence  of  the  wide 
spread  extent  of  the  insurrection  spirit  was  given  by  the  numerous 
and  continued  demonstrations  of  sympathy  and  approval  when 
the  results  of  Harper's  Ferry  were  known  at  the  North. 

In  conclusion,  I  shall  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  incen 
diary-insurrectionists  lost  none  of  their  ardor  nor  ceased  from  amy 
of  their  efforts  even  after  Virginia  put  a  just  and  righteous  period 
to  John  Brown's  career.  Let  me  examine,,  in  concise  detail,  the 
evidence  supporting  each  one  of  these  five  countfe. 

I.  The  known  character  of  the  man  permitted,  encouraged,  and 
aided  to  lead  the  initial  stroke. 

In  the  first  place,  it  had  been  known  for  many  years,  through 
out  the  North,  that  Brown  was  an  open  advocate  of  armed  slave 
insurrection  led  by  white  men.  It  was  a  well-advertised  fact  that 
at  one  time  he  had  gone  abroad  to  study  the  methods  of  the  brutal 
insurrectionist^  of  Hayti  and  St.  Domingo,  and  the  fortifications 
of  Europe,  for  the  purpose  of  applying  the  knowledge  gained  to 
an  open  war  of  negro  insurrection  against  the  South.723  It  was 
known  that  he  insisted  that  it  was  "better  that  a  whole  generation 
should  pass  off  the  face  of  the  earth,  men,  women,  and  children, — 
by  a  violent  death,"724  as  in  these  exact  words  he  declared,  than  that 
slavery  -should  longer  continue.  It  was  known  that  Brown  "meant 
to  attack  slavery  by  force,  in  the  States  themselves,  and  to  destroy 
it  ...  by  the  weapons  and  influences  of  war."75  It  was  notorious 


723Saborn's  Life  of  Brown. 
72<Ib.,  122. 
725Ib.,  166. 
21 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

that  for  more  than  ten  years  he  had  organized  societies  into  which 
he  had  inducted  both  whites  and  blacks,  the  constitution  of  which 
taught  and  declared  that  "no  jury  can  be  found  in  the  Northern 
States  that  would  convict  a  man  for  defending  his  rights  to  the 
last  extremity";  which  simply  meant  that  Northern  juries  would 
not  respect  the  Federal  laws  regulating  the  return  of  fugitive 
slaves;  and  which  taught  that  murder  in  resisting  Federal  man 
dates  and  United  States  officers  would  go  unpunished  by  a  nulli 
fying  North.  It  was  also  a  part  of  the  business  of  these  societies 
to  advise  fleeing  slaves  to  collect  against  their  pursuers  ready  for 
murder,  and  "let  the  first  blow  given  be  the  signal  for  all  to 
engage,  [and]  do  not  your  work  by  halves,  but  make  clean  work 
with  your  enemies."  Nor  might  innocent  and  law-abiding  white 
Northerners  escape  the  clutches  of  these  arch  plotters;  the  res 
cuing  party  were  thus  counseled :  "After  effecting  a  rescue,  if  you 
are  assailed,  go  into  the  houses  of  your  most  prominent  and  influ 
ential  white  friends  with  your  wives;  and  that  will  effectually 
fasten  upon  them  the  suspicion  of  being  connected  with  you,  and 
will  compel  them  to  make  common  cause  with  you,  whether  they 
would  otherwise  live  up  to  their  professions  or  not."75  At  Spring 
field,  Massachusetts,  Jan.  15,  1851,  in  a  single  day  as  many  as 
forty  Northern  whites  and  blacks  joined  this  organization,  one 
other  object  of  which  wate  to  circulate  among  Southern  slaves 
papers  containing  the  above  advice  and  instruction. 

What  was  Brown's  personal  character?  It  is  quite  natural  to 
inquire  whether  he  was  a  man  who  might  be  morally  capable  of 
such  desperate  and  soul-sickening  butchery  as  slave  insurrection 
must  mean.  Some  of  his  co-conspirators  have  endeavored  to  hide 
his  blood-stained  hands  under  the  covering  of  "divine  instrumen 
tality."  Such  profane  blasphemy  is  couched  in  such  expressions 
as  "servant  and  prophet  of  God" — his  campaign  "is  now  seen  to 
have  been  an  omen  of  his  [God's]  divine  purpose""  — "sainted 
hero"  (Hinton,  John  Brown  and  His  Men) — "a  man  of  God" 
(Connelley). 

But  we  are  not  so  much  interested  to  know  what  others  have 
said  of  his  character  and  life,  as  to  hear  what  the  deeds  of  his  life 


726Ib.,  124,  127. 
7*Ib.,  123. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  323 

have  to  tell.  Early  in  the  Kansas  rebellion  we  find  him  acting 
with  the  Northern  insurgents.  Sanborn,  who  wrote  (in  1888)  by 
authority  of  the  Brown  family,  says,  "Until  Brown  arrived  on  the 
scene  in  Kansas,  few  blows  had  been  struck  in  the  Lord's  cause."7" 
Brown  began  to  strike;  who  fell  victims  to  glut  his  scarce  more 
fiendish  greed  of  human  gore?  Jas.  K.  Hosmer,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D., 
of  Minnesota,  give's  us  this  picture  of  these  first  blows :'"..,  four 
sons,  a  son-in-law,  and  two  others,"  together  with  old  man  Brown, 
went  on  a  secret  mission  of  vengeance.  "Three  Southern  men,  a 
father  and  two  sons,  named  Doyle,  men  inoffensive,  against  whom 
no  charge  could  be  brought,  were  compelled,  it  was  May  24,  1856, 
to  go  with  them;  and  the  three  next  morning  were  found  mur 
dered.  The  weapon  evidently  had  been  a  short  cutlass  which 
Brown  had  brought  with  him  from  Ohio.  A  Southern  man  named 
Wilkinson,  forced  from  his  home  in  spite  of  the  entreaties  of  his 
sick  wife,  was  next  day  found  murdered,  evidently  by  the  same 
means.  The  tale  of  victims  still  lacks  o>ne:  he  was  found  in  Wil 
liam  Sherman,  slain  in  like  fashion.  Like  the  Doyles,  the  other 
victims  were  blameless  except  in  being  from  the  South.  Twenty- 
three  years  after,  one  of  the  band,  Townsley,  told  the  story,  how 
the  old  man  gave  the  signal  and  the  sons  and  followers  did  the 
deeds,  though  in  the  case  of  the  older  Doyle  the  old  mam  himself 
did  not  withhold  his  hand";  and  even  the  next  morning  hife  "hands 
were  still  bloody  from  the  fearful  work."1' 

Lucien  Carr,  now  of  Massachusetts,  of  the  men  thus  murdered, 
says  they  were  "peaceable  settlers  on  the  Pattowatomie."72  San- 
born  says  these  men  were  "notoriously  bad."  But  this  statement 
is  overwhelmingly  refuted.  Even  the  heretofore  oft-quoted  Dr. 
Chas.  Robinson  admits  their  inoffensiveness.  The  Northern  mem 
bers  of  the  Congressional  investigating  committee^  refused  to  enter 
an  investigation  as  to  the  facts,  notwithstanding  an  investigation 
was  demanded,  and  notwithstanding  Congress  had  specifically 
declared  that  one  of  the  duties  of  this  committee  was  to  inquire 
into  all  disturbances  touching  personal,  public,  or  private  "rights, 
peace,  and  safety  of  the  residents  of  the  said  Territory."" 

™Life  of  John  Brown,  181. 

T29A  Short  Hist.  Miss.  Valley   (1901),  177-8. 

»°Hist.  Missouri,  251. 

'«  App'dix  Cong.  G  >ue,  1  sess.,  34  Cong.,  291,  636,  675,  690. 


324  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Evidence  that  Brown  had  either  committed,  incited,  or  abetted 
these  sickening,  brutal  homicides,  at  the  time  and  immediately 
went  abroad  in  the  North.  Leading  Northern  people  and  the  local 
representatives  of  the  Northern  press  knew  that  this  was  Brown's 
method  of  dealing  with  the  Southern  people.  It  was  widely 
known  that  he  held  to,  and  firmly  sought  aid  to  carry  out,  his  grim 
purpose  on  a  massive  scale.  "The  fame  of  the  man  had  gone  before 
him,"  we  are  told  in  the  biography  of  one  of  his  most  ardent 
admirers.732  At  the  time  Kansas  had  numerous  correspondents  of 
leading  Northern  papers,  and  these  men  kept  the  public  informed 
concerning  Brown's  deadly  purpose  toward  the  South.  They 
gloried  in  his  purpose.  Hinton  says,  "Most  of  the  regular  corre 
spondents  who  were  present  in  the  Kansas  fighting  years — as  Phil 
lips,  of  the  New  York  Tribune;  Eedpath,  of  the  Missouri  Demo 
crat;  William  Hutchinson,  S.  F.  Tappan,  and  William  Winchell, 
of  the  New  York  Times;  John  Henri  Kagi,  of  the  New  York  Post; 
Hugh  Young,  of  the  New  York  Tribune  and  Pennsylvania  papers ; 
Anderson,  of  the  Boston  Advertiser,  and  myself,  of  the  Boston 
Traveler  and  Chicago  Tribune,  with  a  score  of  other  .  .  .  were  ear 
nest  supporters  of  John  Brown."7'  Dr.  Chate.  Bobinson's  recent 
biographer,  Prof.  Frank  W.  Blackmar,  University  of  Kansas,  says 
of  John  Brown:  "His  Kansas  record  will  not  bear  the  enlightened 
touch  of  history  ...  no  rational  historian  to-day  can  sanction  the 
course  he  pursued  in  Kansas."75 

II.  That  Brown  and  his  scheme  were  themselves  results  rather 
than  causes — that  they  were  the  fruitage  of  Northern  State  nulli 
fication,  and  that  Brown  was  merely  one  of  numerous  leaders  of  a 
faction  sufficiently  large  and  powerful  successfully  to  wage  a  slave 
insurrection,  is  evidenced  by  the  prominence  and  character  of  his 
aiders  and  abettors  and  the  character  of  the  various  gatherings 
that  listened  with  patient  approval  to  his  harangues. 

While  preparing  for  his  incursion  into  the  South  to  excite  and 
arm  the  slaves  to  insurrection  and  murder,  he  visited  many  lead 
ing  Northern  men  and  cities.  He  had  more  or  less  sympathy  and 
aid  in  each.  He  went  to  Chicago,  to  Rochester,  to  New  York  city,. 


732Frothingham,  Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  454. 

733John  Brown  and  His  Men,  40. 

784Ann.  Rep.  Amer.  Hist.  Association,  1894,  p.  218. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  325 

was  a  guest  at  the  Astor  House;  to  Boston,  where  he  was  the 
guest  of  Judge  Russell  and  Dr.  Thayer.  He  visited  Geo.  L. 
Stearns,  and  was  the  guest  of  Theo.  Parker,  at  Concord,  New 
Hampshire.  As  Hinton  says,  "All  over  the  North,  especially  in 
the  more  active  centres  of  Eepublican  political  activity,  John 
Brown  found  friendly  sympathizers,  a  good  deal  of  verbal  encour 
agement,  and  a  small  degree  of  pecuniary  assistance.  Yet  no  one 
who  came  in  close  contact  with  him  could  doubt  but  that  he  held 
firmly  to  a  grim  purpose,  and  that  at  some  day,  not  far  distant, 
he  would  probably  be  heard  from  by  way  of  a  direct  attack  on 
slavery.  There  never  was  any  disguise"  on  Brown's  part,  he  adds. 
There  can  be  no  question  that  a  committee  of  Massachusetts  citi 
zens  furnished  two  hundred  of  the  famous  Sharp's  rifled  car 
bines.735  The  attempt  to  shield  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company  for 
its  part  in  furnishing  him  the  deadly  munitions  and  implements 
of  war,  is  the  variest  quibble.730  Nor  can  responsibility  be  avoided 
by  the  plea  that  it  was  not  known  exactly  what  use  he  would  make 
of  these  guns.  The  fact  is  that  he  made  no  secret  of  the'  object  for 
which  he  desired  the  gunk, — further  than  what  seemed  necessary 
to  prevent  knowledge  of  his  plans  reaching  the  South  in  such  a 
way  as  to  put  the  intended  victims  on  the  guard.  Mr.  Frothing- 
ham,  in  his  life  of  Theo.  Parker,  the  well-known.  Boston  minister, 
tells  us  that  Brown  went  "to  Kansas  to  operate  against  the  slave 
power."7'  The  Kansas  rebellion, — it  is  almost  superfluous  to  add 
again, — was  fostered,  aided,  and  encouraged  by  men  hostile  to  the 
South;  many  of  the  same  men  aided  and  made  possible  Brown's 
effort.  The -war  in  Kansas  was  to  force  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
was  the  first  move  against  the  local  government  of  Constitution 
ally  protected  States;  it  was  made  the  pretext,  on  the  part  of  ait 
least  a  dangerous  number  who  would  never  have  undertaken  the 
move  but  for  the  sympathy  which  the  excitement  that  had  sprung 
against  the  South  out  of  the  agitation,  to  excite  the  Southern  slaves 
to  murder  the  white  people  among  whom  they  lived.  So  it  was, 
using  Frothingham's  words,  that  Brown  wanted  the  rifles  "to  carry 
the  war,  if  advisable,  into  the  enemy's  country.  ...  He  frankly 


785Burgess,  The  Civil  War  and  the  Const.,  Vol.  I.,  40 
736Frothingham,  Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  461. 
T37Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  453. 


326  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

said  that  whatever  was  entrusted  to  him  must  be  entrusted  uncon 
ditionally."738 

The  futile  attempt  of  more  recent  years  to  warp  history  with  the 
impression  that  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair  had  no  widespread,  pow 
erful,  and  dangerous  backing,  is  apparent  upon  slight  analysis. 
Some  Northern  men  who  had  avowed  their  purpose  to  invade  the 
South  with  the  overwhelming  numbers  and  the  superior  wealth  of 
the  North,  have  sought  to  divert  the  ear  and  eye  of  the  world  and 
centre  them  upon  John  Brown  as  a  criminal  fool  who  had  little 
backing.  Eli  Thayer,  for  instance,  has  painted  Brown  in  most 
Stygian  colors — but  why  ?  What  part  had  Thayer,  twice  a  member 
of  the  Massachusetts  legislature  and  at  the  very  time  of  Brown's 
raid  a  member  of  Congress, — Eli  Thayer,  the  fluent  of  tongue,  the 
prime  mover  of  the  emigrant-incubator — what  connection  had  he 
with  Harper's  Ferry?  John  Brown,  according  to  Mr.  Thayer's 
own  statements,  went  to  him  in  Worcester,  Massachusetts,  "to 
solicit  a  contribution  of  arms  for  the  defence  of  some  Kansas  set 
tlements  which  he  said  he  knew  were  soon  to  be  attacked  by  parties 
already  organized  in  Missouri  for  that  purpose.  Not  doubting  his 
word,"  says  Thayer,  "I  gave  him  all  the  arms  I  had,  in  value 
about  five  hundred  and  fifty  dollars."  "NOT  DOUBTING  HIS 
WOKD."  This  is  a  thin  attempt  to  evade  responsibility.  How 
could  Thayer  believe  the  story?  Notice  the  true  situation: 
( 1 )  Brown  was  not  then  and  had  never  been  recognized  by  Thayer 
as  reliable.  Before  this  request  for  arms,  Amos  A.  Lawrence  had 
asked  Bobinson,  Mr.  Thayer's  agent,  to  employ  Brown  in  the  work 
of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company.  "But  very  soon  Governor  Robin 
son  wrote  that  he  would  not  employ  him,  as  he  was  unreliable,  and 
'would  as  soon  shoot  a  United  States  officer  as  a  border  ruffian/  r' 
so  testifies  Mr.  Thayer  himself.739  (2)  Thayer  himself  denounces 
Brown  for  his  Kansas  murders  in  vigorous  language:  "If  any 
butcher  in  New  York  city  should  hack  and  slash  his  own  hogs  and 
steers  as  John  Brown  hacked  and  slashed  to  death  these  men  and 
boys  in  Kansas,  he  would  be  arrested  and  imprisoned  without 
delay.  After  this  Brown  slew  an  unarmed,  inoffensive  farmer  in 
Missouri."7'  Thayer,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  knew  that 

~»Ib.,  454. 

739Kansas  Crusade,  192. 
740Kansas  Crusade,  196. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  327 

Brown  had  said,  "I  have  not  come  to  make  Kansas  free,  but  to  get 
a  shot  at  the  South."  Thayer  confesses:  "He  wished  to  begin  a 
civil  war."74  Thayer  knew  Brown's  position  with  reference  to  the 
South.  For  charity's  sake  the  South  may  never  say  that  Thayer 
furnished  that  five  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  worth  of.  guns  in 
order,  Nero-like,  to  laugh  while  Brown  took  that  deadly  shot;  but 
the  day  is  here  when  impartial  history  will  say  that  the  criminal 
negligence  of  the  North  was  becoming  an  unbearable  menace  when 
munitions  of  war  would  be  given  to  one  known  to  be  "unreliable, 
and  who  would  as  soon  shoot  a  United  States  officer  as  a  border 
ruffian";  entrusted  to  a  man  who  had  slain  unarmed,  inoffensive 
men, — and  that  to  a  man  who  had  no  connection  with  the  cause 
which  Thayer  represented.  No,  the  South,  at  least,  will  never 
believe  that  Mr.  Thayer  was  misled.  This  will  be  the  Southern 
verdict  for  various  other  reasons,  some  of  which  are:  (1)  At  the 
time  that  Brown  sought  and  obtained  these  guns,  the  United  States 
soldiers  had,  by  order  of  the  President,  long  since  undertaken  the 
pacification  of  Kansas;  (2)  these  soldierfe  were  upon  the  ground, 
amply  strong,  and  indisputably  willing  to  protect  all  parties  mak 
ing  proper  application  to  their  officers;  (3)  they  could  have  been 
reached  long  before  Brown  and  his  guns  could  have  gone  from 
Massachusetts  to  Kansas;  (4)  for  over  three  years  the  Northern 
settlers  in  Kansas  had  been  well  armed,  had  drilled  companies  and 
all  the  guns  they  could  use;  (5)  all  these  facts  were  known  to 
Thayer  better  than  to  any  other  man  in  the  world.  With  all  his 
sulphurous  anathemas  against  Brown,  Senator  Thayer  has  failed 
to  divert  attention  from  the  crimson  hue  of  his  own  reckless  acts. 
I  must  agree  with  one  statement,  at  least,  made  by  Thayer's  North 
ern  reviewers:  "Mr.  Thayer  is  not  above  garbling,  by  suppression 
and  otherwise."742 

Commenting  on  the  assistance  rendered  Brown  in  preparing  for 
his  Harper's  Ferry  attack,  by  George  Luther  Stearns,  a  wealthy 
Boston  merchant,  Hinton  says,  "Without  Mr.  Steam's  friendship 
and  cooperation,  the  blow  at  Harper's  Ferry  would  probably  never 
have  been  delivered."  While  this  expression  is  doubtless  an  effort 
to  throw  discredit  on  those  who  have  since  defamed  old  Brown  to 


741Ib.,  195. 

7«The  Nation,  Nov.  7,  1889,  p.  373. 


328  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

hide  their  own  sins,  yet  it  shows  that  Northern  wealth  was  being 
devoted  to  aid  aggressive  war  upon  the  South.  Frothingham  says 
Stearns  was  Brown's  "largest  supplier  of  material  aid/'743  The 
South  was  undoubtedly  justified  in  the  belief  that  the  North  was 
ready  to  hear  any  man,  no  matter  what  his  record  or  how  design 
ing  his  future,  so  that  he  was  an  enemy  to  the  slave-holding  section. 
Long  after  Brown's  Pottowatomie  butchery,  we  find  one  branch  of 
the  Massachusetts  legislature  listening  to  him  address  them;  next  we 
see  him  in  Boston  "arranging  for  the  Stearns'  rifles  that  were  cap 
tured  by  Virginia  in  1859"  ;744  next  he  speaks  to  crowded  houses  "in 
the  leading  cities  of  Connecticut ;  then  we  find  him  preparing  to  arm 
the  negroes.  "At  Collinsville  [Connecticut]  he  made  with  Charles 
Blair  a  contract  for  the  manufacture  of  1,000  pikes,  900  of  which 
were  captured  by  Virginia."  Upon  the  pike  contract  he  paid  cash 
$550.745  Here  is  a  point  which  some  overlook :  negroes  were  not 
trained  to  use  the  gun, — a  pike  was  the  negroes'  weapon.  No 
stronger  evidence  was  needed  to  convince  Northern  men  of  Brown's 
intention.  Sharp's  rifles,  United  States  Springfield  muskets,  and 
Hall's  carbines  were  sent  by  Northern  people  to  Kansas:  in  less 
than  one  year,  1855-'56,  no  less  than  five  thousand  one  hundred  of 
these  and  two  thousand  five  hundred  revolvers,  and  four  twelve- 
pound  guns, — besides  tiie  thousands  that  preceded,  and  the  great 
numbers  that  came  after ;  but  pikes  were  made  with  which  to  open 
the  hearts  of  the  Southern  people  who  yet  remained  on  their  native 
lands !  The  truth  is,  that  the  leaders  of  the  Northern  "movement" 
were  ignorant  of  Brown's  plans  only  to  the  extent  that  he  divulged 
the  time  and  place  to  a  chosen  few;  in  this  he  certainly  showed 
some  generalship.  Of  this  latter  number  was  Henry  Howe,  LL. 
D.,  the  well-known  historian,  and  for  some  time  member  of  the 
United  States  Senate.  Howe  says  that  he  had  a  conversation  with 
Brown  concerning  the  undertaking  at  Harper's  Ferry  the  very- 
night  Brown  started  for  that  place.746  Yet  not  once  did  he  warn 
Virginia,  the  Federal  Government,  or  any  private  individuals  of 
the  threatened  evil, — by  doing  which  he  might  have  saved  himself 
the  guilt  of  an  accessory  before  the  fact.  Frothingham,  writing 

M3Life  of  Theo.  Parker,  459. 

744Hinton,  John  Brown  and  His  Men,  143-4. 

745Thayer,  The  Kans.  Crusade,  109. 

T48Howe,  Hist.  Ohio,  Cent.  Ed.,  Vol.  III.,  331. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  329 

of  the  Rev.  Theo.  Parker's  part  in  the  arch  conspiracy  against  prop 
erty,  happiness,  life,  and  female  security,  says  that  February  22, 
1858,  in  preparing'  for  Harper's  Ferry,  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
"in  a  retired  spot,  beneath  a  perfectly  loyal  roof,  to  a  few  tried 
and  trusty  people  the  Virginia  scheme  was  unfolded  in  all  its 
parts,  the  locality  illustrated,  the  provisions  and  contingencies 
explained,  the  movements  detailed,  the  probable  or  possible  event 
ualities  confronted.  The  whole  evening,  and  all  the  next  day,  the 
discussion  went  on  between  the  conspirator  on  the  one  side,  and 
his  astonished  auditors  on  the  other;  the  old  hero  answering  ques 
tions,  meeting  objections,  quieting  doubts,  disarming  fears.  .  .  ,"74 
F.  B.  Sanborn,  who  wrote  Brown's  life  at  the  request  of  the 
family,  Edwin  Morton,  a  classmate  of  Sanborn  at  Harvard  Uni 
versity,7*8  and  other  prominent  men  were  present  at  this  meeting 
and  were  the  approving  auditors  to  the  plots  of  this  red-handed 
Kansas  murderer.  Charity  alone  forbids  me  to  exclaim : 

''Devil  with  devil  damned 
Firm   concord   holds ," 

and     * 

"  Lured  with  the  smell  of  infant  blood, 

great  deeds 
Had  been  achieved  whereof  all  hell  had  wrung;" 

for  mighty  Northern  leaders 

"cried  out  Death! 

Hell  trembled  at  the  hideous  name,  and  sighed 
From  all  her  caves,  and  back  resounded  Death!" 
But  since 

"neither  do  the  spirits  damned 
Lose  all  their  virtue," 

so  it  was  determined  to  move  cautiously  and  surely.  But  should 
I  apply  this  figure,  would  my  words  be  merely  those  of  groundless 
denunciation?  Dr.  Burgess,  Dean  of  the  Faculty  of  the  Univer 
sity  of  Columbia  (New  York),  says,  "Brown  certainly  intended 
the  wholesale  murder  of  the  whites  by  the  blacks  in  case  that 
should  be  found  necessary  to  effect  his  purpose."749  Brown  was 

mOctavus  Brooks  Frothingham,  Life  of  Theo.  Parker   (Boston,  1874),  459. 
748Chadwick's  Life  Theo.  Parker,  337. 
T49The  Civil  War  and  the  Const,  Vol.  L,  42. 


330  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

bent  on  worse  than  rebellion,  worse  than  the  most  inexcusable  seces 
sion, — the  success  of  his  mission  meant  murder  and  infinitely  more 
damnable  consequences.  Could  I  find  language  too  strong  with 
which  to  describe  the  schemes  of  those  who  plot  to  perpetrate  or 
enable  others  to  commit  the  highest  crimes  known  to  civilization? 
Sanborn  reported  to  T.  W.  Higginson  and  Bev.  Theo.  Parker  what 
Brown  had  divulged.  Parker  had  Brown  come  secretly  to  Boston 
for  an  interview.  At  this  interview  the  Virginia  scheme  was  dis 
cussed  with  Parker,  Higginson,  Stearns,  and  Howe — all  men  of 
means,  men  of  prominence,  men  of  education;  all  men  who  would 
never  have  dreamed  of  endeavoring  to  repeat  on  Southern  soil  the 
nauseating  horrors  of  the  negro  insurrection  of  Hayti,  had  not 
the  Northern  anti-slavery  fanatics — all  classes,  the  underground 
railroad,  the  Kansas  rebellion,  the  literature,  full  of  falsehoods  or 
over-stated  conditions,  issued  by  various  anti-slavery  organiza 
tions — had  not  the  combined  influence  of  all  these — prepared  the 
way  and  rendered  in  sympathy  with  such  movements  a  large  public 
sentiment  of  misguided  and  unduly  excited  Northern  people. 

James  Eedpath^  a  man  of  education  and  fair  ability,  had  for 
yeaTS  been  one  of  Brown's  confidents  and  staunch  supporters. 
That  he  was  guilty,  the  fact  that  he  fled  from  the  committee  sent 
by  the  United  States  Senate  to  inquire  into  the  Harper's  Ferry 
affair,  attests  most  conclusively.  He  did  not  have  the  courage  to 
face  an  investigating  committee;  but,  secure  from  punishment  for 
a  crime  of  which  he  was  as  guilty  as  Brown,  in  the  fall  of  1859  he 
sat  himself  down  and  wrote  for  publication  his  "Public  Life  of 
Captain  John  Brown."  It  was  one  of  the  strong  witnesses  which 
impelled  the  South  to  believe  that  she  was  at  any  time  liable  to  a 
repetition  of  slave  insurrections  led  by  intelligent  whites  of  the 
North.  It  is  also  an  important  witness  to  prove  the  character  and 
influence  of  the  men  wTho  were  behind  this  and  similar  moves. 
The  book  was  published  in  Boston  by  Thayer  and  Eldridge.  It 
was  given  to  the  public  in  the  early  part  of  1860.  In  their  Card 
the  publishers  "congratulate  themselves  and  the  public"  on  secur 
ing  Eedpath  as  the  author  of  the  publication,  because  they  say  he 
was  a  man  "whose  previous  life  had  been  so  identified  in  feeling 
and  character  with  the  career  of  the  sainted  hero."  Blessed  be 
sheol!  was  sweeter  music  to  Southern  ears.  In  his  preface  the 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  331 

author  says  that  when  he  heard  of  John  Brown's  arrest,  "I  en 
dorsed  John  Brown,"  and  went  into  print  to  defend  him  and  his 
"scheme  of  emancipation."  He  expresses  his  pleasure  that  the 
publishers  of  his  book  Relieved  in  John  Brown."  On  page  eight 
of  the  Preface  he  says,  "I  think  John  Brown  did  right  in  invad 
ing  Virginia  and  attempting  to  liberate  her  slaves."  He  endorses 
slave  insurrection  because  he  says  it  is  the  only  weapon  the  South 
ern  people  fear.  He  dates  chapter  one  "December  2,  1859,"  and 
on  page  thirteen  says,  "To-day  John  Brown  was  hanged  by  a  semi- 
barbarous  Commonwealth,  as  a  traitor,  murderer,  and  robber,  .and 
fifteen  despotic  States  are  rejoicing  at  his  death;  while,  in  the  free 
North,  every  noble  heart  is  sighing  at  his  fate,  or  admiring  his 
devotion  .  .  .,  or  cursing  the  executioners  of  their  warrior-saint." 
The  author  tells  his  readers  that  yet  another  insurrection  is  to  fol 
low  the  one  Brown  imperfectly  began.  But  I  must  pass  this 
witness;  let  those  who  doubt  read  his  book;  and  then  question  he 
who  can  that  the  South  was  sorely  pressed. 

John  Henri  Kagi,  of  the  New  York  Post;  Eichard  J.  Hinton, 
Kansas  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Traveler  and  the  Chicago  Tri 
bune*  and  eight  other  intelligent  white  men,  had  assisted  Brown 
and  helped  to  make  the  preparations.  They  went  with  him  from 
the  drill-field  at  Springdale  to  Harper's  Ferry.  Kagi  and  Hinton 
were  fully  aware  of  Brown's  plans  months  before  the  effort  to  carry 
them  into  execution.  Owen  Brown  "who  was  vowed  to  the  work  in 
his  early  youth,"  was  a  warm  advocate  of  his  father's  designs  and 
intended  onslaught  on  white  slave-owners.  Hinton  points  out 
that  in  Philadelphia,  on  March  10th  previous  to  Harper's  Ferry, 
Brown  must  have  communicated  details  of  his  plan  to  Fred  Douglas, 
Henry  Highland  Garnet,  of  New  York,  and  Stephen  Smith  and 
William  Still,  of  Philadelphia;  and  that  as  a  result  of  this  con 
ference,  Brown's  son  was  sent  to  Hagerstown,  Martinsburg,  and 
Harper's  Ferry,  to  make  certain  inquiries,  and  that  "the  object  of 
these  was  to  find  out  the  underground  railroad  routes  and  sta 
tions."71  This  information  is  important  because  it  shows  that  the 
underground  system  had  much  to  do  in  making  possible  slave 
insurrections  by  white  Northerners. 

III.  That  Brown  was  only  one  among  many  willing,  aggressive 

750 John  Brown  and  His  Men,  170. 


332  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

white  Northerners  who  sought  an  opportunity  to  lead  the  slave  in 
insurrection;  and  that  the  teachings  of  others  besides  Brown  that 
slave  insurrection  was  to  be  devoutly  desired, — whose  position 
likewise  received  the  endorsement  of  prominent  Northern  citizens 
and  officials, — did  much  to  confirm  the  South  in  her  belief  of  im 
pending  calamity,  and  also  go  to  establish  my  premises. 

Hi  chard  J.  Hinton,  some  time  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Republic, 
published  in  Washington  city  after  the  war,  and  who,  from  about 
1884,  was  connected  with  the  American  Society  of  Irrigation  En 
gineers,  of  New  York,  went  to  Kansas  in  the  early  days  of  her 
insurrection  as  the  representative  and  correspondent  of  the  Boston 
Traveler  and  Chicago  Tribune.  In  1894  he  published  his  book, 
John  Brown  and  His  Men.  In  it  he  admits  that  he  went  to  Kan 
sas  to  excite,  foster,  or  lead,  if  need  be,  slave  insurrection.  Thi's 
is  not  the  only  evidence  that  the  Kansas  rebellion  was  meant  to  be 
war — war  not  alone  for  the  conquest  of  Kansas,  but  war  upon  the 
South.  July  12,  1858,  Rev.  Theo.  Parker  wrote:  "In  185G  we 
were  quite  close  to  a  civil  war.  Had  the  governor  of  Kansas  done 
as  we  bid  .  .  .  the  war  would  have  begun  then."71  "As  we  bid!" 
The  "we"  must  have  been  the  Northern  leaders  of  the  emigrant 
aid  and  other  similar  organizations,  to  all  of  which  Parker  was  a 
constant  contributor.  However  unreliable  a  witness  may  be,  state 
ments  criminating  himself  are  always  evidence  of  the  highest 
character  to  prove  his  guilt.  James  Redpath,  a  native  of  Massa 
chusetts,  went  West  and  became  identified  with  an  organ  called 
the  Missouri  Democrat.  In  a  published  work  (New  York,  1858) 
he  avowed  that  he  had  gone  to  Kansas  "hoping  to  foment  slave  in 
surrection."  It  is  certain  that  Brown's  move  on  Harper's  Ferry 
was  merely  a  part  of  a  plan  which,  in  its  entirety,  failed  to  mate 
rialize.  The  cause  of  the  failure  was  that  a  man, — an  English 
fencing  master, — who  had  been  employed  by  Brown  to  give  instruc 
tions  in  drill,  gave  out  some  general  information  which  caused 
Brown  to  move  before  the  appointed  day.  As  is  shown  by  Froth- 
ingham,  no  definite  information  was  given,  but  it  precipitated 
action.  It  had  been  planned  that  Dr.  A.  M.  Ross,  of  Toronto, 
Canada,  who  went  to  Richmond,  Virginia,  "according  to  a  pre 
vious  understanding  with  Brown,"  should  carry  out  another  detail 


751Frothingham's  Life  of  Parker.  475. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  333 

of  the  bloody  tragedy,  though  just  what  it  was  we  shall  probably 
never  know.  It  is  practically  admitted  in  Ross's  letter  of  Jan.  21, 
1893.752  Eoss  and  Hinton  are  both  corroborated  by  Redpath, 
whose  book,  as  I  have  said,  was  published  in  1860.  He  emphati 
cally  states  that  the  object  of  Brown  and  his  co-conspirators  in 
going  to  Canada  previous  to  Harper's  Ferry  was  to  elicit  the  sup 
port  of  the  slaves  who  had  fled  to  that  country.  While  in  Canada, 
Brown  and  his  other  intelligent  wrhite  coadjutors  had  prepared  a 
form  of  government  which  they  meant  to  enforce  as  soon  as  they 
•secured  a  hold  in  the  South.753  An  examination  of  this  plan  of 
government  and  the  evidence  connected  with  it,  will  convince  one 
that  Brown  meant  to  take  the  entire  South, — and  not  to  run  off 
small  bands  of  slaves  as  is  sometimes  claimed.  The  Canadian 
negroete  were  organized,  together  with  whatever  white  help  could 
be  obtained,  and  it  was  arranged  that  the  Canadian  and  other  con 
tingents  were  to  march  under  orders  from  Brown,  the  head  of  the 
new  government,  of  which  Kagi  was  "secretary  of  war,"  to  Har 
per's  Ferry  about  October  24th.  For  some  time  Brown  had  had 
his  guns  and  munitions  of  war  secreted  in  a  farm  house  near  Har 
per's  'Ferry  and  on  the  Maryland  side.  The  information  which 
had  gone  abroad,  together  with  suspicions  which  had  been  aroused 
by  reason  of  the  several  men  who  had  been  seen  about  the  rented 
premises,  induced  Brown  to  fear  detection,  and  so  to  strike  earlier 
than  the  day  set.  Concerning  this  unexpected  decision,  Redpath 
says,  "But  the  decision,  however  necessary,  was  unfortunate;  for 
the  men  from  Canada,  Kansas,  New  England,  and  the  neighboring 
free  States,  who  had  been  told  to  prepare  for  the  event  on  the  24th 
of  October,  and  who  were  ready  to  do  their  duty  at  Harper's  Ferry 
at  that  time,  were  unable  to  join  their  captain  at  this  earlier  period. 
Many  who  startexl  to  join  the  Liberators,  halted  halfway;  for  the 
blow  had  already  been  struck,  and  their  captain  made  a  captive. 
Had  there  been  no  precipitation,  the  mountains  of  Virginia 
to-day  [fall  of  1859]  would  have  been  peopled  with  free  blacks 
properly  officered  and  ready  for  field  action."71  It  had  been 
arranged  that  the  slaves  should  be  drilled  to  use  pikes,  scythes,  cut- 


752Vide  Hinton's  John  Brown,  174,  269. 

733This  plan  in  full  is  set  out  in  Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  1  sess.,  36  Cong.,  26. 

754Redpath,  John  Brown's  Public  Life,  243-4. 


334  NOKTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

lasses,  and  bludgeons  of  all  kinds  until  their'  liberation  or  the 
extermination  of  their  masters,  motet  likely  both,  should  be  accom 
plished.  Even  after  the  blow  had  been  struck,  Brown  hoped  for  the 
promised  aid;  but  the  prompt  action  of  the  then  Col.  R.  E.  Lee 
prevented  "Canada,  Kansas,  New  England,  and  the  free  States" 
from  marching  to  join  in  the  carnage. 

I  pause  here  to  remark  that  some  have  said  that  the  Eepublican 
party,  as  it  was  before  the  war,  was  responsible  for  Harper's  Ferry. 
With  this  view  I  do  not  agree.  I  believe  that  the  Eepublican 
party  that  elected  Lincoln,  and  John  Brown's  attempted  slave  in 
surrection,  were  twin  brothers, — born  of  a  distorted  moral  judg 
ment,  largely  the  result  of  misinformation;  the  union  of  various 
rivulets  guided  into  a  stream  whose  course  could  be  stopped  only 
by  a  merciful  God  after  the  wicked  had  triumphed  for  a  season. 

But  the  men  more  closely  associated  with  Brown  were  by  no 
means  all  of  their  class,  nor  all  who  cherished  similar  ambitions. 
There  were,  too,  many  sources  from  which  emanated  disturbing 
and  misleading  influences  which  added  untold  weight  and  did 
much  to  produce  the  graver  conditions.  All  through  the  bitter 
years  down  to  Brown's  raid,  the  North  had  a  decided  advantage  in 
having  the  most  widely  circulated  papers,  and  most  extensive  pub 
lishing  houses.  In  this  way  she  led  public  opinion  in  her  own 
borders,  and  largely  moulded  sentiment  abroad.  Many  of  her 
most  influential  books  and  papers  were  the  most  untruthful,  or 
most  base  in  their  plans  and  recommendations,  for  the  treatment 
of  the  Southern  people.  A  few  well-known  instances  will  be  rep 
resentative  of  their  classes. 

A  writer,  who,  at  the  time  he  wrote  these  words,  was  professor 
of  Jurisprudence  in  the  university  of  which  he  is  now  president, 
an  institution  of  which  not  New  Jersey  alone  is  proud,  says, 
"Books  like  Mrs.  Stowe's  'Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,'  which  stirred  up 
the  pity  and  deep  indignation  of  Northern  readers,  certainly  de 
picted  possible  cases  of  inhuman  conduct  toward  the  slaves.  Such 
cases  there  have  been ;  they  may  even  have  been  frequent ;  but  they 
were  in  every  sense  exceptional,  showing  what  the  system  could 
produce,  rather  than  what  it  did  produce  as  its  characteristic  spirit 
and  method.  For  public  opinion  in  the  South,  while  it  recognized 
the  necessity  for  maintaining  the  discipline  of  subordination 


NORTHERN  REBELLION- AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  335 

among  the  hosts  of  slaves,  was  as  intolerant  of  the  graver  forms  of 
cruelty  as  was  the  opinion  of  the  best  people  in  the  North."71  At 
another  place  the  same  author  says,  "In  the  summer  of  1852  ap 
peared  a  new  engine  of  anti-slavery  sentiment,  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher 
Stowe's  powerfully  written  novel,  'Uncle  Tom's  Cabin/  with  its 
moving  and  imaginative  protrayal  of  the  pathos,  the  humor,  the 
tragedy,  the  terror  of  the  slave  system.  While  it  unquestionably 
showed  what  might  come  out  of  the  system,  it  was  built  upon 
wholly  exceptionable  incidents.  It  was  a  product  of  the  sympa 
thetic  imagination,  which  the  historian  mufet  reject  as  quite  mis 
leading,  but  it  nevertheless  stirred  to  their  profoundest  depths 
thousands  of  minds  in  the  North  which  the  politician  might  never 
have  reached  with  his  protests  against  the  extension  of  slavery. 
It  was  a  subtle  instrument  of  power,  and  played  no  small  part  in 
creating  the  anti-slavery  party,  which  was  presently  to  show  its 
strength  upon  so  great  a  scale  in  national  politics."7' 

Yet  it  was  upon  such  information,  similar  in  its  want  of  veracity 
to  such  statements  as  those  given  out  by  a  prominent  Northern 
agitator  Sept.  11,  185G,  when,  in  all  sincerity,  he  declared  that 
with  ^the  Missourians  or  the  Southern  immigrants  in  Kansas 
"scalping  is  as  common  as  with  other  savages" ;  or  not  less  ground 
less  and  misleading  than  when  the  same  man  informed  his  friends 
that  Governor  Shannon  had  "furnished  the  Southern  marauders" 
arms  and  whiskey  and  set  them  "to  scalp  the  peaceful  citizens  of 
Kansas" — that  the  mad  clamor  against  the  South  fed.  Nothing 
less  than  a  dangerously  mad  mania  was  possible  under  such  stimu 
lants. 

Thomas  H.  Gladstone,  the  English  journalist,  played  no  unim 
portant  part  in  disseminating  error  concerning  the  South.  His 
most  damaging  work  was  at  a  time  most  critical  in  our  history. 
He  was  the  correspondent  of  the  London,  England,  Times.  He 
came  to  New  York  in  the  winter  of  1855-'56 ;  from  there,  passing 
through  some  of  the  Southern  States,  he  went  to  Kansas.  From 
Kansas  he  wrote  contributions  which  professed  to  give  the  unbiased 
truth  concerning  the  struggle  between  the  North  and  the  South  as 
it  was  being  carried  on  in  the  new  Territory.  His  writings  were 

™Woodrow  Wilson,  Division  and  Reunion,  126-7. 
™Ib.,  181. 


336  NORTHERN   REBELLION  AND'  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

put  in  book  form;  one  edition,  "Kansas;  or,  Squatter  Life  and 
Border  Warfare  in  the  Far  West,"  was  published  by  a  London 
house  in  1857.  Another,  about  the  same  time  in  the  same  year, 
was  published  by  a  New  York  house,  and  purported  to  be  "edited" 
by  L.  M.  Olmstead.  Through  the  London  Times  and  these  two 
publications  of  his  book,  he  reached,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  the 
Northern  people  in  America  and  the  English-speaking  people  in 
Europe.  His  means  of  influence  were  great.  He  helped  to  poison 
the  Northern  mind;  he  added  breath  to  the  mad  mania  sweeping 
down  upon  the  South..  When  I  realize  the  error,  the  inaccurate 
information,  upon  which  Northern  anti-slavery  indignation  grew, 
I  am  led  rather  to  pity  the  masses  than  condemn.  Saddest  of  all, 
is  the  blind  faith  and  unyielding  tenacity  with  which  some  yet 
cling  to 'the  fast  decaying  skeleton  of  untruth  in  the  an  ti-  Sou  them 
pre-bellum  declarations.  Slowly  history  moves  to  the  vindication 
of  the  South's  position  from  first  to  last. 

Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  of  Harvard  University,  has 
compiled  what  purports  to  give  various  phases  of  our  country's 
history  "as  told  by  contemporaries."  That  within  itself  is  harm 
less  ;  "error  is  harmless  while  reason  is  left  free  to  combat  it,"  said 
Sumner  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  March  the  12th,  1856. 
But  when  the  youth  of  our  land  are  left  under  the  impression  that 
error  is  truth — when  error  lies  hidden  beneath  high  scholastic 
sanction — reason  is  helpless  and  error  robs  truth  of  rightful  do 
minion.  Professor  Harfs  work,  "Welding  of  the  Nation,"  in 
American  contemporary  history  series,  contains  several  excerpts 
from  the  New  York  edition  (1857)  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  book. 
Hart's  book,  among  other  things,  purports  to  give  the  readers 
some  impartial  contemporary  evidence  of  the  great  struggle  be 
tween  the  North  and  the  South  as  wrought  out  in  Kansas. 
Speaking  of  the  field  of  his  evidence,  in  the  Preface,  Professor 
Hart  says,  "I  have  tried  ...  to  call  upon  the  best  informed  and 
best  disposed  witnesses."  In  the  prefatory  biographical  note  he 
says,  "Gladstone,  a  kinsman  of  William  E.  Gladstone,  was  an  Eng 
lishman  who  came  to  the  United  States  as  an  ordinary  traveler  and 
after  a  tour  through  the  South  arrived  in  Kansas  at  a  critical 
period.  His  experience  was  to  a  large  degree  from  the  pro^slavery 
side;  and  his  account,  first  published  in  the  London  Times,  is  per- 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  337 

haps  the  most  impartial  contemporary  narrative  that  we  have."" 
"After  a  tour  through  the  South/'  says  Professor  Hart.  Yes,  but 
that  was  after  a  "tour"  through  the  North,  and  after  Gladstone 
had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  slave 
holders,  and  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  Northern  movement  in 
Kansas.  He  was  in  New  York  "during  the  latter  part  of  the 
winter  1855-'56."7J  On  his  way  South  he  spent  some  time  in 
Washington  city.  While  there  and  before  his  investigation,  he 
wrote,  "I  ...  was  not  long  in  discovering  that,  while  the  Presi 
dent  and  the  advocates  of  the  Southern  views  maintained  the 
authority  of  the  illegally  constituted  Territorial  Legislature  of 
Kansas,  the  judiciary  and  other  officers  appointed  by  it,  the  oppo 
site  party,  with  a  large  portion  of  the  people  of  Kansas  them 
selves/'  supported  another  organization.759  He  thus  unqualifiedly 
brands  the  Southern-elected  legislature  as  "illegally  constituted/' 
and  prejudices  his  readers  by  charging  the  South  and  the  Presi 
dent  with  supporting  an  illegal  body. 

Perhaps  nothing  Gladstone  said  placed  the  South  in  a  more 
unjust  light,  especially  in  the  eyes  of  Elurope,  than  the  way  in 
which  he  announces  the  appointment  by  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  of  the  Kansas  investigating  committee.  Having  mentioned 
the  motion  to  appoint  such  a  committee,  he  says,  "No  member 
from  any  one  of  the  Southern  States  voted  in  favor  of  the  investi 
gation,  but  happily  a  majority  was  given  by  the  Northern 
States.'"'  While  this  statement  upon  its  face  is  true,  yet  to  say 
no  more  than  he  does,  especially  when  taken  in  connection  with 
other  assertions  in  his  writings,  was  a  gross  injustice  to  the  South 
ern  position:  Mr.  Gladstone  "smothered  the  issue,"  to  appropriate 
the  words  of  a  Northern  Congressman  used  in  another  connection. 
Gladstone  was  speaking  not  alone  for  Northern  ears,  but  through  the 
paper  which  he  represented,  the  London  Times,  he  spoke  to  at  least 
all  English-Europe.  As  a  "most  impartial  contemporary,"  as  "the 
best  informed"  witness,  presuming  to  speak  if  he  neglected  or  sup 
pressed  important  truth,  he  thus  branded  himself  as  a  most  pre 
judiced  contemporary  and  showed  that  he  was  by  no  means  the 

757Am.  Hist.  Told  by  Cont'ies,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  114. 
""London   (1857)   Edition,  p.  1. 
759Ib.,  4. 
760Ib.,  5. 

22 


338  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

best  disposed  witness,  and  left  upon  his  story  evidence  of  gross 
injustice — an  injustice  which  helped  to  prejudice  the  European 
world  so  deeply  that  the  scar  yet  remains.761  He  was  in  Washing 
ton  at  the  time,  and  from  the  galleries  of  the  Capitol  was  hearing, 
or  should  have  been,  the  arguments  of  both  sides.  But  little — 
certainly  no  adequate — presentation  of  the  Southern  position  on 
the  Kansas  question  does  he  give.  Unquestionably  the  impression 
left  by  his  language  is  that  the  Southern  Congressmen  were  either 
afraid  of  a  Congressional  investigation  or  too  unfair  to  agree  to 
one.  The  true  history  of  the  appointment  of  the  Kansas  investi 
gating  committee,  whose  majority  report  Mr.  Rhodes  calls  the 
Howard  Report,  appointed  under  a  resolution  which  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives  March  19,  1856,  not  only  helps  us  to 
understand  Gladstone's  pro-Northern  prejudice,  but  is  history  of 
no  little  value  and  significance. 

The  motion  authorizing  the  committee  grew  out  of  the  contest 
by  ex-Governor  Reeder  for  the  seat  of  General  Whitfield  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  which  Whitfield  claimed  he  had  been 
re-elected  October  1,  1855.  This  contest  was  before  the  Committee 
of  Elections,  to  whom  it  properly  belonged.  The  committee  had 
asked  the  House  for  enlarged  powers,  whereupon  it  was  moved, 
"That  the  Committee  of  Elections,  in  the  contested  election  case 
from  Kansas,  be  and  are  hereby  empowered  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers,  and  to  examine  witnesses  upon  oath  or  affirmation." 
Whereupon,  William  W.  Boyce,  a  representative  from  South  Caro 
lina,  moved  that  this  resolution  be  re-committed  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  Election,  with  the  following  instructions,  viz. : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  of  Elections,  in  examining  and 
judging  of  the  'elections,  returns,  and  qualifications/  of  persons 
claiming  to  have  been  elected  representatives  of  States,  or  dele 
gates  of  Territories  which  have  been  duly  organized  by  Congress, 
shall  exclude  from  their  consideration  the  claims  of  all  persons 
who,  after  being  afforded  ample  time  to  do  so,  fail  to  show  the  elec 
tion  under  which  they  claim  to  have  been  elected  a  representative 
or  delegate  was  held  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Ter 
ritory  sought  to  be  represented  by  such  claimant  or  claimants,  or 


781Instance:    Dr.  von  Hoist  (Germany),  Hist.  U.  S.,  Vol.  V.,  233. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  339 

was  elected  in  pursuance  of  a  law  of  the  United  States  for  the  gov 
ernment  of  such  election. 

"Resolved,  further,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  the  House  no  repre 
sentative  of  a  State  of  the  Union,  and  no  delegate  of  a  Territory 
organized  by  Congress,  can  rightfully  be  admitted  to  a  seat  in  this 
House,  except  in  pursuance  of  law. 

"Resolved,  further,  That  the  validity  of  the  laws  of  Congress, 
of  States,  and  of  Territories,  can  be  rightfully  passed  upon  by  the 
courts  duly  established  by  the  constitutions  and  laws,  and  by  no 
other  power;  that,  until  repealed  or  modified,  or  declared  null  and 
void  by  the  judiciary,  the  executive  and  legislative  powers  of  the 
government  must  conform  their  actions  to  the  laws  of  the  land, 
and  may  not  disregard  them." 

"Resolved,  further,  That  the  Committee  of  Elections  be  hereby 
instructed  to  pursue  their  investigations  in  accordance  with  the 
foregoing  principles."76 

On  the  4th  of  March  Mr.  Boyce  withdrew  his  motion  to  recom 
mit  with  the  above  instructions,  and  Hedley  S.  Bennett,  of  Mis 
sissippi,  moved  to  amend  the  said  resolution  by  striking  out  all 
after  the  word  "Resolved,"  and  offered  a  broad  resolution  appoint 
ing  Jas.  H.  Bradley  and  Sidney  S.  Baxter  a  committee  to  examine 
this  contested  election,  and  which  motion  clothed  them  with  full 
power  "to  elicit  clear  and  full  proof  upon  all  points  which  the  par 
ties  may  respectively  submit  to  them  as  facte  they,  or  either  of 
them,  desire  to  establish  or  controvert."  This  resolution  proposed 
that  they  take  depositions  and  what  else  "would  tend  to  a  full  and 
perfect  eli citation  of  the  truth  touching  all  such  controverted  mat 
ters.  "7<  Then  he  moved  to  instruct  the  committee  "to  exclude,"  as 
did  Boyce,  "from  their  consideration  the  claims  of  all  persons  who 
fail  to  show  that  the  election  under  which  they  claim  to  have  been 
elected"  was  "held  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  the  State  or  Terri 
tory  sought  to  be  represented."794 

This  involved  a  question  that  the  Republican-abolition  members 
of  the  House  refused  to  face.  Reeder  claimed  to  have  been  elected 
at  a  gathering  of  the  free-State  people  in  which  they  alone  par- 


762 Journal  H.  R.,  March  6,  1856,  p.  646. 
763House  Journal,  March  14,  p.  678. 
764Ib.,  678. 


340  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ticipated  October  9,  whereas  the  regular  authorized  election  had 
been  held  on  the  1st.    The  Republican  majority  of  the  investigating 
committee,,  which  as  we  well  know  was  finally  appointed,  do  not 
claim  for  Eeeder  a  single  vote  at  the  regular  election;  they  do  not 
dispute  that  Whitfield  received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes.    They 
frankly  admit  that  on  the  regular  day  of  the  election,  October  1st, 
"the  free-State  men  took  no  part.""      It  must  be  remembered  that 
at  the  time  Eeeder  claimed  to  have  been  elected,  the  Topeka  gov 
ernment    did    not    pretend    to    have    any    organization    for    civil 
purposes,  and  it  wafe  not  contended  that  he  was  elected  under  the 
laws  of  any  organized  power.    This  being  true,  the  South  took  the 
correct  position,  that,  as  contestant  and  in  an  election  contest  for 
a  seat,  he  could  not  be  heard  to  dispute  the  laws  under  which  the 
sitting  delegate  was  elected.     Hon.  W.  H.  English,  representative 
from  Indiana,   addressing  the  House  March   18th,   pending  this 
question,  stated  the  situation  in  language  which  cannot  be  im 
proved.     Said  he,  "At  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  present 
Congress,  Mr.  Whitfield  appeared,  produced  his  credential's  (which 
were  in  due  form),  received  the  oath  of  office,  and  took  his  seat  as 
a  delegate  upon  this  floor.     He  was,  prima  facie  at  least,  as  much 
entitled  to  a  seat  as  any  gentleman  here.     Upon  the  face  of  the 
papers  he  wafe  the  duly  elected  delegate — was  certified  to  be  such 
by  the  Governor — was  chosen  at  an  election  held  under  authority 
of  a  law  passed  by  the  Kansas  Legislature,  the  members  of  which 
were  elected  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress  organizing  the 
Territory.     No  one  can  dispute,  therefore,  that,  as  the  case  now 
stands,  he  shows  a  regular  chain  of  title  and  a  perfect  right  to  his 
seat;  and  that  it  devolves  upon  those  who  contest  this  right,  to 
disprove  his  title,  by  competent  proof,  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
law,  and  in  accordance  with  the  usages  of  this  body.    A.  H.  Reeder 
is  the  gentleman  who  contests  the  seat,  and  upon  whose  memorial 
the  Committee  of  Elections  have  asked  for  unlimited  power  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  this  is  the  immediate  question 
before  the  House.    It  is  proper  to  remark  that  at  the  election  held 
pursuant   to  the   act  of   the  Kansas   Legislature,   Mr.   Whitfield 
received  two  thousand  nine  hundred  votes,  and  Mr.  Reeder  but 
thirty-six  [though  it  afterward  developed  that  none  were  claimed 


705Maj.  Report,  Sp.  Com.,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  No.  200,  pp.  44-5. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  341 

for  him] — the  whole  number  of  votes  being  less  than  three  thou 
sand.  The  latter  does  not  claim  to  have  been  elected  at  that  time, 
nor  does  he  pretend  that  all  the  votes  cast  for  Mr.  Whitfield  were 
illegal.  He  alleges  that  some  hundreds  of  them  were  illegal,  but 
does  not  contend,  nor  does  any  of  hi's  friends,  that  any  other  person 
received  more  legal  votes  at  that  election  than  Mr.  Whitfield.  If 
Mr.  Whitfield  had  received  but  one  hundred  legal  votes,  and  that 
was  the  highest  number  of  legal  votes  any  individual  received,  he 
would  still  be  clearly  entitled  to  the  seat.  Mr.  Eeeder  claims  to 
have  been  elected  at  another  time;  and,  although  he  says  that  he 
received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  [in  this  different  and  separate 
election],  he  does  not  say,  and  cannot  say,  it  was  at  an  election 
authorized  by  law.  The  truth  is,  it  was  at  an  irregular  and  unau 
thorized  gathering  of  the  people  without  any  legal  sanction  what 
ever."  So  it  was  that  the  Southern  members  and  their  friends 
proposed  to  instruct  the  Committee  of  Elections,  or  whomsoever 
should  be  appointed  to  adjudge  the  contest,  as  the  House  had  a 
right  to  do,  as  Mr.  English  put  case,  "that  the  claimant  must 
rely  upon  the  strength  of  his  own  case,  and  not  upon  the  weakness 
of  his  adversary  .  .  .  he  must  come  into  court  with  clean  hands, 
and  cannot  be  allowed  to  take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong."™ 
That  is,  the  Southern  members  and  their  Democratic  friends  stood 
upon  the  plain,  just,  and  applicable  principles  of  law  and  equity 
and  parliamentary  procedure,  that  until  Eeeder  showed  that  what 
ever  votes  he  had  received  were  cast  at  a  legal  and  authorized 
election,  he  could  not  question,  as  contestant,  the  election  of  the 
sitting  delegate.767  The  South  shrank  no  proper  investigation. 
On  the  contrary,  her  resolutions  courted  the  fullest;  nor  did  she 
stickle  as  to  who  should  constitute  the  committee  to  decide  the  con 
test.  One  of  her  resolutions  proposed  Bradley  and  Baxter, 
distinguished  Washington  lawyers,  who  seem  to  have  been  per 
sonally  unobjectionable  to  no  portion  of  the  House.  Yet,  she 
declared  that  any  fair  and  unbiased  committee  would  be  acceptable. 
Fully  aware  that  Eeeder  had  no  valid  claim,  the  Northern  members 
sought  to  avoid  this  instruction  to  the  investigating  committee  or 


766 App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  289. 

T87See  a  full  discussion,  App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  118-122,  122-127, 
277-280. 


342  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

that  of  Elections,  as  the  case  might  be;  and,  in  the  security  of 
their  numbers,  preferred  to  hold  matters  where  they  could  dispose 
of  them  as  policy  dictated.  Hence,  on  March  17th,  Mr.  Dunn,  of 
Indiana,  had  moved  to  amend  the  pending  motion  to  amend,  and 
had  offered  a  resolution  to  appoint  a  committee  "to  inquire  into 
and  collect  evidence  in  regard  to  the  troubles  in  Kansas  generally," 
etc.,  with  the  Reeder  contest  as  its  basis.768  On  the  19th  of  March 
the  question  came  up  on  agreeing  to  this  amendment  to  the  amend 
ment  offered  by  Mr.  Dunn,  which  clothed  the  committee  with  all 
embracing  powers  of  investigation  instead  of  directing  them  to 
determine  the  contested  seat  of  General  Whitfield,  the  question 
before  the  House.  By  a  vote  of  104  to  91  the  House  agreed  to 
amend,  and  the  resolution  as  amended  passed  by  a  vote  of  102  to 
93,  with  the  Southern  members  and  Democrats  generally  in  the 
negative.769  Few  acts  have  been  less  justified  in  point  of  law,  or 
less  without  valid  legislative  precedent,  yet  few  things  have  re 
sulted  more  in  the  preservation  of  valuable  evidence  vindicating 
Southern  honesty  and  self-defence.  But  nothing  of  all  this  does 
Mr/  Gladstone  give  his  Northern  and  English  readers.  Let  us  go 
further  into  our  analysis  of  his  alleged  impartiality  and  historical 
credibility. 

He  gives  an  untruthful  picture  of  meetings  which  he  says  he 
visited  while  in  the  Southern  States,  and  at  which  he  says  men  of 
influence  "delivered  addresses  of  almost  incredible  violence  on  the 
necessity  of  'forcing  slavery  into  Kansas/  and  which  terminated 
by  an  earnest  appeal  for  men  and  money.  The  result  of  this  public 
agitation  was,  that  large  companies  were  formed  of  young  men 
who  were  enthusiastic  for  slavery,  and  subscriptions  of  large 
amounts  were  made  to  send  these,  who  were  already  at  blood-heat 
with  excitement,  armed  into  the  Territory,  flushed  with  means 
of  support  during  the  continuance  of  their  campaign."77  He  pro 
fesses  this  information  upon  personal  knowledge,  hence  it  can  be 
nothing  less  than  a  deliberate  misrepresentation.  Not  only  no 
"large  companies  armed"  were  sent  or  went  from  the  South  to 
Kansas,  but  no  large  companies  at  that  time — prior  to  May,  '56, — 


768House  Journal,  685-6. 
769Ib.,  693,  700. 
770London  Ed.,  6. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  343 

armed  or  unarmed  went  to  Kansas  from  the  South  "flushed  with 
means  of  support  during  the  continuance  of  their  campaign." 
While  no  one  accuses  even  the  much  berated  "border  ruffians  of 
Missouri"  with  being  "flushed  with  means  of  support,"  yet  it 
was  not  of  Missourians  he  spoke;  he  tells  this  story  of  the  people 
of  "South  Carolina  and  other  Southern  States."771  If  he  spoke  of 
the  Buford  movement,  or  that  of  Titus  or  any  other  branch 
thereof,  he  misrepresented  it,  because  they  were  neither  "flushed 
with  the  means  of  support  during  the  continuance  of  the  cam 
paign,"  nor  were  they  armed,  as  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts, 
admitted  in  a  bitter  speech  of  volcanic  but  baseless  denunciations 
against  Mtesourians,  in  which  he  said  that  "their  lawless  chiefs 
deserve  to  die  felons'  deaths  and  to  leave  felons'  names."  He 
alleged  that  Governor  Shannon  armed  these  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  other  Southerners  AFTER  they  reached  the  Terri 
tory,772  but  as  I  have  shown,  the  recorded  testimony  of  non-Southern 
United  States  Army  officers  tells  quite  another  story.  Gladstone 
was  in  the  North  before  visiting  the  South,  yet  he  scarcely  men 
tions  the  early,  widespread,  and  flushed,  Northern  emigrant 
organizations,  and  what  little  he  does  say  of  them  is  as  utterly 
misleading  as  the  English  at  his  command  would  express.  Hear 
him:  "To  meet  these  efforts  on  the  part  of  organizations  in  Mis 
souri,  Emigrant  Aid  societies  were  formed  in  Boston  and  elsewhere 
in  the  Eastern  States  to  promote  the  movement  on  the  side  of  the 
North."7'  "To  meet" — yes,  he  learned  his  lesson  well  from  Messrs. 
Howard  and  Sherman  of  the  investigating  committee,  with  whom 
he  associated  in  Kansas  part  of  the  time  they  were  acting  under 
their  Congressional  orders, — he  vouches  the  untruth  that  the  ag 
gressive  emigrant  movement  began  in  Missouri,  and  that  "flushed 
with  means  of  support"  armed  bodies  swept  up  from  the  South. 
He  failed  to  tell  of  the  "Beecher  Bibles"  contributed  by  "rich  New 
Englanders" ;  he  forgets  about  the  Northern  cannon  and  the  thou 
sands  of  Sharp's  rifles  that  had  gone  from  men.  of  influence  in  the 
North  to  the  free-State  ranks,  some  of  them  many  months  before 
he  reached  Kansas.  He  tells  nothing  of  the  cause  of  whatever  he 


™Ib.,  5. 

772App.  Cong.  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.,  855. 

"3London  Ed.,  90. 


344  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

may  have  heard  and  seen  in  the  South;  the  reader  is  left  to  feel 
that  this  "perhaps  the  most  impartial  contemporary"  is  giving 
us  a  true  version  of  an  aggressive  Southern  movement — and  a 
movement  to  sustain  what  the  writer  took  care  to  tell  the  reader 
was  the  "illegally  constituted  Territorial  Legislature  of  Kansas."774 

Mr.  Gladstone  got  to  Missouri  in  May,  1856,  "five  hundred 
miles  from  the  scene  of  the  conflict."775  May  22d  he  arrived  on 
the  "spot"  and  then  proceeds  to  chronicle  the  story  with  which 
Professor  Hart  begins  his  excerpts  in  "Welding  of  the  Nation." 
This  may  be  found  on  page  21  of  the  London  edition.  Gladstone 
says  he  writes  from  "information' gathered  on  the  spot"  (page  11), 
and  "for  the  most  part  from  pro-slavery  men."  Let's  see. 

He  says  the  attack  upon  and  destruction  of  Lawrence  May  21, 
1856,  and  the  imprisonment  of  free^  State  leaders,  evoked  a  spirit 
of  resistance.  He  thus  ignored  the  truth  that  armed  resistance 
had  been  universal,  o>r  well-nigh  so,  with  free-State  people 
for  nearly  a  year  before  May  21st.  He  says,  "On  that  event 
ful  day,  the  town  of  Lawrence,  without  offence  or  crime,  was 
attacked  by  armed  forces."  "Without  offence  or  crime" — does 
any  one  believe  that  such  a  statement  came  from  a  pro-slavery 
source?  Can  any  impartial  reader  look  at  the  facts  concerning 
the  free-State  rebellious  movements  with  Lawrence  as  head 
quarters,  and  believe  that  she  was  "without  offence  or  crime?" 
Now,  look  at  the  excerpt  given  by  Profetesor  Hart  for  which  he 
vouches  it  is  "perhaps  most  impartial."  Mr.  Gladstone  goes  back 
a  little  before  depicting  the  scenes  of  May  21st.  Speaking  of  the 
"Wakarusa  war  in  the  winter  of  1855,"  he  says,  "Before  the  ter 
mination  of  this  first  siege,  the  necessity  of  some  means  of  defence 
being  manifest,"  the  inhabitants  proceeded  to  fortify.  The  truth  is, 
they  fortified  long  before  this  first  affair  which,  as  I  have  shown, 
grew  out  of  the  Branson  rescue.  This  information  concerning  the 
first  "fortifying"  of  Lawrence  was  not  only  not  pro-slavery  infor 
mation,  but  was  misleading  and  inaccurate,  and  conveyed  a  most 
erroneous  idea  afe  to  the  beginning  of  hostilities.  Again,  of  this 
same  first  "attack"  or  first  "Wakarusa  war,"  he  says,  "The  inhabi 
tants  were  also  placed  under  arms,"  etc.  When  the  truth  is  that 


774Ib.,  4. 
"'Ib.,  8. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  345 

armed  companies  had  been  formed  some  time  before;  unless  he 
prevaricated  wilfully,  this  version  is  purely  Northern.  He  speaks 
of  threatened  Missouri  invasions,  but  gives  no  intimation  of  the 
various  movements  of  the  several  divisions  of  the  free-State  army. 
Then  he  says,  "The  Southern  States  were  being  appealed  to  far 
and  wide,"776  and  the  reader  is  left  to  infer  that  the  North  was 
quietly  looking  on  in  spellbound  horror.  An  impartial,,  most  cer 
tainly  "the  best  informed"  and  "best  disposed,"  witness  would 
at  least  have  intimated  the  gathering  of  Sharp's  rifles,  cannon, 
and  Northern  munitions  of  war. 

In  the  paragraph  before  the  second  excerpt  given  by  Professor 
Hart,  page  24  of  the  London  edition,  our  "perhaps  the  most  im 
partial  contemporary"  vouches  this  information :  "In  the  meantime 
the  Free-State  delegates  met  at  Topeka,  organized  the  State  Leg 
islature,  and  made  application  to  the  federal  power  for  the  admis 
sion  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  a  free  constitution,  and 
petitioned  the  President,  although  vainly,  for  protection  from 
wrong.  Their  steadfast  adherence  to  these  peaceful  measures,  and 
their  remarkable  moderation  in  the  midst  of  much  that  might 
have  excited  a  spirit  of  resistance,  was  doubtless  due  to  the  peace 
able  policy  ever  counseled  by  their  Commander-in-Chief  and 
Governor,  Charles  Eobinson,  whose  wise  caution  preserved  the 
Free-State  party  from  doing  a  single  act  which  might  serve  their 
adversaries  as  a  reasonable  excuse  for  an  appeal  to  arms."  The 
glaring  suppression  of  facts — and  since  we  are  told  that  he  was 
"well  informed"  it  must  have  been  a  suppression — brought  out 
even  alone  in  the  official  reports  of  the  army  officers  on  duty  in 
Kansas  in  1856,  evidenced  by  these"  materially  misleading  asser 
tions,  needs  no  further  comment. 

From  the  connection  as  given  by  Professor  Hart  on  p.  118, 
where  he  has  the  witness  says,  "Among  the  scenes  of  violence  I 
witnessed,"  etc.,  one  would  think  Gladstone  an  eye-witness  to  the 
"'sack  of  Lawrence."  But  such  was  by  no  means  the  case.  He 
did  not  enter  Kansas  until  the  day  after  (p.  37),  and  for  some 
days  thereafter  was  in  Leavenworth  (p.  55).  Not  until  page  59 
does  this  next  to  last  excerpt  begin,  and  it  has  no  reference  to 
Lawrence;  and  certainly  few  Northern  partisans  will  admit  that 


776P.  115  of  Hart's. 


346  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

any  true  phase  of  Kansas  history  indicates  that  the  free-State  men 
were  "intimidated  and  over-awed."  Next  to  the  last  paragraph 
Professor  Hart  cut  his  witness  off  rather  soon  for  a  just  estimate 
of  his  true  worth  and  value  as  historical  evidence.  Where  the  pro 
fessor  has  those  four  omission  period's,  we  read:  "The  policy  of 
the  Free-State  party,  prior  to  the  21st  of  May  [185(5]  was  one 
of  determined  non-resistance,  the  people  being  counseled  to  give 
no  ground  of  offence  or  pretext  for  violence,  and  to  seek  a  restora 
tion  of  justice  and  order  through  legal  redress  alone."  No  state 
ment  could  be  further  from  the  truth;  resistance,  armed  resistance, 
Northern-supported  resistance,  unqualified  repudiation,  final  con 
flict  with  Federal  authorities,  marked  every  move  of  the  free-State 
party  at  least  for  more  than  a  year  before  the  21st  of  May  here 
mentioned.  Read  a  little  more  even  from  Professor  Hart's  quo 
tations:  "guerrilla  parties  thought  themselves  justified  in  recov 
ering  stolen  horses  and  other  property"  and  "other  acts  o>f  retalia 
tion  occurred";  "violence  ensued."  That  the  free-State  "army" 
stole,  burnt,  murdered,  and  pillaged,  and  that  they  drove  proslavery 
settlers  "out  of  house  and  home"  by  armed  mobs, — that  they 
began  and  waged  aggressive  barbaric  war, — and  that  their  acts 
preceded  rather  than  ensued — that  these  truths  may  appear,  that 
it  may  be  seen  how  wa,rped  and  how  wanting  in  fullness  were  the 
evidences  upon  which  anti-Southern  feeling's  were  formed;  that 
it  may  be  seen  how  the  fanaticism  of  the  North  and  the  prejudices 
of  a  non-Southern  world  fed  upon  false  information;  that  it  may 
be  seen  that  some  endorsements  of  ante-bellum  historical  sources 
need  to  be  taken  with  caution, — I  have  given  this  review  by  no 
means  exhausting  the  defects  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  premises  and 
conclusion's.  If  more  were  needed,  I  might  point  to  two  or  more 
instances  without  exhausting  the  list.  Describing  Missourians 
whom  he  says  he  saw  returning  from  the  "sack  of  Lawrence,"  he 
say's,  "...  their  faces  unwashed  and  unshaven,  still  reeking  with 
the  smoke  and  dust  of  Lawrence,  wearing  the  most  savage  looks, 
and  giving  utterance  to  the  most  horrible  imprecations  and  blas 
phemies;  armed,  moreover,  to  the  teeth  with  rifles  and  revolvers, 
cutlasses,  and  bowie-knives  .  .  .  groups  of  bellowing,  bloodthirsty 
demons."777  Of  such,  "moreover,"  he  declares  were  most  of  the 

777Ib.,  39. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  347 

Southerners  he  found  in  the  bordering  parts  of  Missouri.778  Worst 
of  all,  he  told  the  English  people  that  this  large  Southern  element 
was  practically  hopeless!  Listen:  "Having  once  been  taught  that 
robbery  and  outrage,  if  committed  in  the  services  of  the  South, 
were  to  be  regarded  as  deeds  of  loyalty  and  obedience,  these  min 
isters  of  a  self-styled  'law  and  order5  were  slow  to  unlearn  a 
doctrine  so  acceptable."77  Any  man  who  would  pen  so  black  a 
slander  on  citizens  of  Missouri  or  any  other  part  of  the  South, 
concerning  them  at  any  time  in  their  history,  most  certainly  de 
serves  any  other  fate  than  being  placed  among  reputable  Kansas 
"war"  contemporaries. 

Most  prominent  among  the  bitter  works  which  served  to  show, 
or  give  occasion  for  the  manifestation  of,  the  extent  and  character 
of  the  Northern  frenzy,  was  the  one  which  came  from  the  pen  of 
Hinton  Helper,  a  degenerate  son  of  North  Carolina.  His  book 
was  circulated  by  hundreds  of  thousands.  In  it  he  proposed  a 
plan  to  be  enforced  against  the  South  requiring  the  immediate 
emancipation  of  the  slaves,  and  that  each  emancipated  negro 
should  be  given  sixty  dollars  by  his  former  master.  The  white 
people  of  the  South  were  to  be  proscribed  from  both  society  and 
church;  they  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  carry  on  commerce;  and 
no  Southern  white  man  was  to  be  given  employment.  If  resist 
ance  to  the  execution  of  this  plan  was  made,  DEATH  was  to  be 
the  penalty.  I  shall  give  a  few  quotations  from  this  book;  and 
while  these  are  being  read,  remember  that  it  is  not  the  mere  ex 
pression  of  the  one  man, — Northern  leaders  sanctioned  and 
endorsed  the  proposed  plan.  It  was  endorsed  by  the  Eepublican 
part}7,  whose  sworn  leader,  Mr.  Lincoln,  they  as  anti-slavery  men 
had  chosen  to  take  the  reins  of  government.  The  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  "and  sixty-four  of  the  leading  Kepub- 
licans  in  the  House  and  Senate  showed  what  measures  their  party 
was  determined  to  enforce  against  the  South"  by  endorsing  and 
helping  to  circulate  Hinton  Helper's  Manifesto.  As  the  work  of 
one  man,  it  would  have  soon  gone  down  to  deepest  oblivion;  as 
a  witness  through  ite  champions  who  thus  made  it  their  own 
expressions,  it  will  ever  live  as  a  potent  deponent  to  justify  the 


.,  106. 
T79Ib.,  38. 


348  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

belief  entertained  by  the  South  that  the  subversion  of  the  govern 
ment  threatened  her  with  dire  and  irreparable  evils. 

Helper  says  in  his  preface  that  he  does  not  consider  his  subject 
from  its  "religious  aspect" ;  a  statement  with  which  all  must  cer 
tainly  agree,  for  the  book  savors  of  treachery  and  plutonic  inhu 
manity  from  beginning  to  end, — notwithstanding  his  profession 
of  love  for  the  South.  He  points  out  many  things  which,  however, 
were  unquestionably  needed  by  the  Southern  people;  but  the 
proposed  cure  was  infinitely  worse  than  the  disease.  On  page  328 
of  "The  Impending  Crisis  in  the  South  and  How  to  Meet  It/'  he 
say's,  "Compensation  to  the  slaveholders  for  the  negroes  now  in 
their  possession!  The  idea  is  preposterous.  The  suggestion  is 
criminal.  The  demand  is  unjust,  wicked,  monstrous,  damnable. 
Shall  we  lick  the  bloodhounds  of  slavery  for  the  sake  of  doing 
them  a  favor?  Shall  we  fee  the  curs  of  slavery  in  order  to 
make  them  rich  at  our  expense?  Shall  we  pay  the  whelps  of 
slavery  for  the  privilege  of  converting  them  into  decent,  honest, 
upright  men?  No,  never."  On  page  363:  "Freesoilers  and  aboli- 
tioni'sts  are  the  only  true  friends  of  the  South."  On  page  31 : 
"Down  with  the  oligarchy.  Ineligibility  of  slaveholders — never 
another  vote  to  the  trafncer  in  human  flesh !"  On  page  381 :  "Pov 
erty,  ignorance,  and  superstition  are  the  three  leading  charac 
teristics  of  the  non-slaveholding  whites  of  the  South.  .  .  .  All 
are  more  or  less  impressed  in  a  belief  in  witches,  ghosts,  and 
supernatural  signs.  Few  are  exempt  from  habits  of  sensuality 
and  intemperance."  On  page  406:  "...  newspapers  and  books 
seem  generally  ignored,  and  noisy  discussions  of  village  and  state 
politics,  the  tobacco  and  cotton  crops,  filibusterism  in  Cuba, 
Nicaraugua,  or  Sonora,  the  price  of  negroes  generally,  and  es 
pecially  of  'fine-looking  wenches/  the  beauties  of  lynch  law,  the 
delights  of  horse-racing,  the  excitement  of  street  fighfe  with 
bowie-knives  and  revolvers  .  .  .  constitute  the  warp  and  woof  of 
conversation.  All  this  is  on  a  level  with  the  general  intelligence 
of  the  Slave  States."  Thus  it  is  seen  that  he  puts  the  general 
intelligence  of  the  South  at  a  point  none  removed  from  the  con 
dition  of  those  who  are  generally  and  erroneously780  called  the  "poor 


T80Walter  H.  Page,  The  Rebuilding  of  Old  Commonwealths  (1902),  122. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  349 

whites," — a  condition,  as  he  pictures  it,  scarcely  removed  from 
those  which  prevail  in  barbarous  communities. 

By  way  of  parenthesis,  it  is  interesting  to  contrast  with  this  con 
tention  of  Helper's  what  intelligent  Northerners  and  foreigners 
have  said  on  the  same  point.  Miss  Hariet  Martineau,  for  instance, 
spent  some  years  in  the  United  States,  part  of  which  she  spent  in 
the  South  studying  the  people,  their  manners,  education,  and  in 
stitutions.  She  says,  "If  we  reckon  by  numbers,  there  were  cer 
tainly  more  well-bred  people  at  the  North  than  at  the  South 
[because  the  population  of  the  North  exceeded  that  of  the  South]  ; 
but  when  we  compare  the  cream  of  society  in  both  sections,  the 
palm  must  be  awarded  to  the  slave-holding  community.  The  tes 
timony  of  English  gentlemen  and  ladies,  few  of  whom  have  any 
sympathy  with  slavery,  is  almost  unanimous  in  this  respect."  She 
spoke  of  the  Southern  people  who  lived  at  the  same  period  as  those 
of  whom  Helper  professed  to  speak.  Turning  to  Northern  writ 
ers,  Dr.  John  Todd,  who  has  not  read  and  admired  his  helpful 
book?  says,  "We  justly  admire  the  easy,  graceful  politeness  of  our 
Southern  brethren."781  Of  the  first  settlers,  both  North  and  South, 
Fiske  has  testified  "That  the  settlers  of  Virginia  and  New  Eng 
land  were  opposed  to  each  other  in  politics,  but  they  belonged  to 
one  and  the  same  stratum  of  society,  and  in  their  personal  char 
acteristics  they  were  of  the  same  excellent  quality."782 

I  shall  give  one  more  quotation  from  Helper's  book,  which  shows 
that,  having  proposed  that  the  slave-holding  whites  should  never 
again  be  allowed  to  vote,  hold  office,  or  carry  on  commerce,  in 
case  of  resistance  his  plan  was  that  the  non-slave-holding  whites 
were  to  help  the  "slaves  'cut  their  masters'  throats.'  Gathering 
his  plan  from  page  149  we  find  that  he  proposes"  ...  a  speedy 
and  perfect  abolition  of  the  whole  institution  is  the  true  policy 
for  the  South — and  this  is  the  policy  which  we  propose  to  pursue." 
He  says  that  if  this  cannot  be  done  otherwise  "the  first  battle  be 
tween  freedom  and  slavery  will  be  fought  at  home."  In  summing 
up  the  strength  for  this  conflict,  he  concludes:  "So  it  seems  that 
the  total  number  of  actual  slave-owners,  including  their  entire 
crew  of  cringing  lickspittles,  against  whom  we  have  to  contend, 


""Students'  Manual,  235. 

782Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,  Vol.  II.,  28. 


350  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

is  but  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  thousand  five  hundred  and 
twenty-five.  Against  this  army  for  the  defence  of  the  propagation, 
we  think  it  will  be  an  easy  matter — independent  of  the  negroes, 
who,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  would  be  delighted  with  an  oppor 
tunity  to  cut  their  masters'  throats,  and  without  accepting  a  single 
recruit  from  the  Free  State's,  England,  France,  or  Germany — to 
muster  one  at  least  three  times  as  large,  for  its  utter  extinction.  .  .  . 
We  are  determined  to  abolish  slavery  at  all  hazards."  Not  only 
in  this  extract,  but  throughout  the  book  his  proposition  is  plain: 
slaveholders  shall  free  their  slaves  immediately,  pay  them  a  hand 
some  sum,  be  disfranchised,  and  take  the  most  humble  position  in 
life,  or  their  army  of  defence  was  to  meet  "its  utter  extinction." 
This  meant  a  practical  enslavement  of  the  intelligent  whites; 
which  would  have  been  accepted  by  the  Southern  people,  such  a 
condition,  or  utter  extinction?  "And  yet,  the  leader's  of  the 
North,  Messrs.  Seward,  Chase,  Grreeley,  Colfax,  and  their  co-ad- 
jutors,  endorsed  Helper's  book."  When  in  the  halls  of  Congress 
Southern  Congressmen  openly  charged  the  Republicans  with  help 
ing  to  circulate  Helper's  book,  they  dodged  the  issue.783  It  was 
the  encouragement  which  such  high  endorsements  gave  these 
threatened  insurrections,  which  made  the  danger  of  slave  uprisings 
great  and  pressing. 

Turning  once  more  to  the  writers  of  the  North,  we  find  on  July 
12,  1858,  writing  to  a  friend  Rev.  Theo.  Parker  said,  "I  should 
like  of  all  things  to  see  an  insurrection  of  the  slaves.  It  must  be 
tried  many  times  before  it  succeeds,  as  oat  last  it  must"'8*  Yet  this 
is  the  man  of  whom  Emerson — Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  essayist, 
minister,  and  Northern  leader, — known  to  every  school  boy  and 
girl  all  over  our  Southland — said,  "By  the  incessant  power  of  his 
statement  he  made  and  held  a  party.  .  .  .  His  commanding  merit 
as  a  reformer  is  this,  that  he  insisted  beyond  all  men  in  pulpits — 
I  cannot  think  of  one  rival — that  the  essence  of  Christianity  is 
its  practical  morals."78  The  South,  then,  was  confronted — not 
by  John  Brown  and  his  Harper's  Ferry  party  alone — but  by  nien 
"who  could  make  a  party";  and  by  those  men  who  taught  that 


783Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong.,  1  sess.,  Jan.  11,  I860,  pp.  81- 
7MFrothingham,  Life  of  Parker,  475. 
783Ib.,  551. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  351 

party  that  a  slave  insurrection  was  a  moral  event  to  be  devoutly 
desired.  Daily  these  contaminating  and  brutal  influences  were 
growing. 

IV.  From  the  character  of  the  men  who  assisted  in  the  imme 
diate  attack  on  Harper's  Ferry,  we  find  that  the  poisoning  influ 
ence  of  the  insurrectionists  was  reaching  an  educated,  fairly  in 
telligent,  and  thus  doubly  dangerous  white  element.  Brown's 
attack  showed  the  South  that  when  the  insurrectionist^  talked  of 
the  death  of  the  white  slave-owrner,  they  meant  exactly  what  was 
said — his  physical  murder.  The  murders  and  thefts  which  resulted 
from  the  attack  told  all  too  plainly  how  desperate  had  become  the 
error-ridden  Northern  abolitionists. 

With  the  details  of  Brown's  immediate  attack,  I  need  not  enter 
for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion, — unless  it  be  the  briefest  out 
line786  His  party  left  the  Kennedy  farm,  where  the  final  plans  had 
been  concluded,  about  8  o'clock,  October  16,  1859.  Brown  had  re 
turned  from  Philadelphia  but  two  nights  before,  John  Henri 
Kagi,  some  time  representative  of  the  New  York  Post,  "Adju 
tant-General"  and  "second  in  command,"  was  to  take  and  hold 
Hall's  Eifle  Works.  In  the  language  of  one  of  Brown's  confed 
erates,  "down  the  still  road,  dim  white  in  the  moonlight,  amid  the 
chill  October  night,"  John  Henri  Kagi,  of  the  New  York  Post, 
late  of  the  Kansas  insurrection,  and  Aaron  D.  Stevens,  also  a  Kan 
sas  insurrectionist,  and  who  was  known  in  Kansafe  as  "Colonel 
Whipple,"  and  for  whom  criminal  warrants  had  been  issued  in 
Kansas,787  led  the  vanguard  of  what  was  meant  to  be  the  greatest 
slave  insurrection  of  the  world.  John  Edwin  Cooke  and  Chas.  P. 
Tidd  cut  the  telegraph  wires.  Cooke  left  his  home  in  the  North 
some  years  before,  and,  with  some  money,  went  to  Kansas  and  took 
part  in  the  rebellion.  Tidd  had  joined  Brown  at  Topeka,  Kan 
sas,  and  had  assisted  in  arranging  for  the  Harper's  Ferry  attack. 
Jeremiah  G.  Anderson,  who  was  an  active  member  of  the  notorious 
Montgomery  band  which  we  saw  operating  in  Southern  Kansas, 
and  who  was  with  Montgomery  when  he  fought  the  United  States 
soldiers  while  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty  in  Kansas,  and  a  man 
by  the  name  of  Thompson,  a  product  of  the  underground  railroad 


786See  Col.  R.  E.  Lee's  Official  Report,  Exec.  Docs.,  36  Cong.,  Vol.  II.,  19  et  seq. 
"•Kans.  Hist.  Cols.,  Vol.  I.,  244. 


352  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

movement,  took  possession  of  the  prisoners  taken.  Albert  Hazlett, 
who  was  also  with  the  Montgomery  band  when  it  fought  the  sol 
diers  and  fired  Fort  Scott  in  Kansas,  and  Edwin  Copple  (or  Cop- 
pock)  took  possession  of  the  United  States  armory,  which  contained 
near  200,000  stands  of  arms,  which  they  hoped  soon  to  have  men 
to  use,  Thus  the  product  of  the  Kansas  rebellion,  which  itself 
had  been  the  product  of  the  agitation  by  leading  white  men  in  the 
North,  led  the  charge  upon  the  little  village  of  Harper's  Ferry. 
Within  a  short  time  five  innocent  persons  had  been  murdered ;  and 
had  the  movement  had  one-half  the  time  for  development  that  the 
Nat  Turner  insurrection  had,  or  any  of  the  other  numerous  slave 
uprisings,  the  Southern  people  would  have  been  wiped  from  the 
map.  The  attacking  party  took  the  valuable  silverware  of  Col.  L. 
W.  Washington,  and  took  whatever  else  seemed  to  indicate  useful 
ness  in  war.  In  an  interview  published  in  the  New  York  Herald, 
October  21,  1859,  Brown  admitted  these  thefts  and  said,  "We  in 
tended  freely  to  appropriate  the  property  of  slaveholders  to  carry 
out  our  object."71  A  northbound  train  escaped  the  investing  party, 
and  this  spread  the  news  of  the  attack.  This  timely  information 
enabled  the  Virginia  authorities  and  regular  troops  to  arrive  in 
time  to  strike  down  in  its  infancy  what  must  have  grown  to  a 
giant  had  the  assistance  which  had  been  promised  had  time  to  ar 
rive. 

V.  Leaders  and  published  literature  mould  the  popular  will, 
and  a  widespread  popular  sentiment,  however  full  of  error,  nerves 
the  daring  and  urges  to  action  that  numerous  class,  found  in  all 
communities,  possessed  of  an  inordinate  and  perverted  thirst  for 
fame  and  notoriety.  Deeds  of  rashness,  unchecked  in  their  infancy, 
lead  to  greater  iniquity.  The  deification  of  the  variest  plutonic 
chieftain  augments  the  already  widening  ripples  of  mental  abrasion. 
Popular  movements  in  the  wrong  direction,  unless  checked  by  the 
steadier  of  hand  and  cooler  of  perception  and  judgment,  stop  only 
after  innocent  victims,  too  often,  glut  the  savage  greed.  By  the 
time  Lincoln  had  been  declared  elected  the  insurrection-abolition 
element  of  the  North  had  behind  it  a  popular  approval, — generated 
by  the  turmoil  and  misinformation  of  the  preceding  years, — the 
product  of  illogical  deductions,  which  made  possible  repetitions  of 

788Hart,  Welding  of  a  Nation,  150. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  353 

Harper's  Ferry  in  increasing  numbers  and  rapidly  growing  sweep 
of  devastation.  Why  did  the  South  at  the  time  feel  that  this  was 
true?  It  was  proven  by  the  widespread  popular  ratification  of 
Brown's  attack.  If  the  North  had  repudiated  Brown  and  his  awful 
attempt,  the  South  might  have  forgiven  them.  This  they  not  only 
did  not  do,  but  they  left  no  doubt  of  their  sympathetic  and  unquali 
fied  approval.  In  various  unmistakable  ways  the  world  was  assured 
that  had  Brown  succeeded,  no  matter  if  the  destruction  of  the 
entire  white  population  of  the  South  had  been  the  result,  he  would 
have  been  hailed  as  a  hero  and  mounted  upon  a  pedestal  of  honor 
and  entwined  with  the  garlands  of  honorable  victory.  When  the 
news  of  the  failure  of  his  plan  went  abroad  at  the  North,  flags  were 
half-masted,  and  the  stars  and  stripes  were  put  at  mourning  out  of 
respect  for  a  murderer.  Numerous  houses  were  draped  in  mourn 
ing;  prayer-meetings  in  manifestation  of  sympathy  on  account  of 
the  failure  of  his  scheme  were  held  far  and  near.  It  was  credits 
ably  reported  that  on  the  day  of  his  execution  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  came  within  two  votes  of  adjourning  as  a  token  of 
sympathy  and  respect.789  Large  gatherings  all  over  the  North  lis 
tened*  with  respect  and  approval  to  speeches  of  defamation  against 
the  South.  The  words  of  Wendell  Phillips,  when  bemoaning  the 
fate  to  which  failure  had  brought  Brown,  will  be  representative  of 
such  speeches.  Taking  Virginia  as  the  object  of  his  tirade,  because 
it  had  fallen  to  her  lot  to  execute  a  righteous  judgment,  he  said: 
"Virginia  is  another  Algiers.  The  barbarous  hoard  who  gag  each 
other,  imprison  women  for  teaching  children  to  read,  prohibit  the 
Bible,  sell  men  on  the  auction  block,  abolish  marriage,  and  con 
demn  half  of  their  women  to  prostitution,  and  devote  themselves  to 
the  breeding  of  human  beings  for  sale,  is  only  a  larger  ancl  blacker 
Algiers."  James  Eedpath  and  Frank  B.  Sanborn,  both  of  Massa 
chusetts,  and  Thaddeus>  Hyatt,  of  New  York,  refused  to  appear 
before  the  Senate  committee  which  was  making  some  effort  to  look 
into  the  connection  which  others  had  with  Brown.  The  committee 
succeeded  in  finding  Sanborn,  and  had  him  arrested  for  the  purpose 
of  requiring  his  attendance  before  them.  But  a  Massachusetts 
judge  released  him  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  In  the  report  of  the 
committee  they  say  that  "Eedpath,  by  leaving  his  State,  and  other- 


T89Burgess,  The  Civil  War  and  the  Const.,  Vol.  I.,  42. 
23 


354  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

wise  concealing  himself.,  successfully  evaded  the  process  of  the  Sen 
ate."  John  Brown,  Jr.,  was  wanted  before  the  committee,  but  he, 
assisted  by  a  number  of  Ohioans,  resorted  to  armed  resistance  and 
thus  made  his  escape.  In  fleeing  to  save  themselves  or  friends 
from  the  clutches  of  the  law,  evidence  of  no  inconsiderable  weight 
added,  if  possible,  only  deeper  conviction  of  the  correctness  of  the 
verdict  which  the  South  was  about  to  pronounce. 

The  North  says  Brown  was  a  monomaniac.  Was  Hinton?  He 
was  as  guilty  as  Brown ;  he  had  premeditated  slave  insurrection  for 
years;  he  has  seemed  to  be  clothed  in  his  right  mind  for  these 
many  years  since  those  fearful  days.  Was  Kagi?  He  was  an  ac 
credited  correspondent  of  the  Post,  an  accredited  Northern  paper, 
for  which  he  was  "a  vigorous  writer,"  says  Noble  L.  Prentis.790  Was 
Aaron  D.  Stevens?  As  "Colonel  Whipple"  he  manceuvered  the 
seditious  troops  in  Kansas  to  the  satisfaction  of  an  abetting  North. 
Was  John  Edwin  Cooke?  At  one  time  he  was  a  promising  young 
lawyer.  Hazlett  and  Anderson  were  said  to  be  among  the  most  bril 
liant  and  cunning  of  the  famously  notorious  Montgomery  insurrec 
tionists.  Were  they  insane  ?  To  leave  the  immediate  actors :  Was 
Theodore  Parker,  D.  D.  ?  He  had  devoutly,  he  tells  us  himself, 
wished  for  a  series  of  slave  insurrections.  Was  Thomas  Wentworth 
Higginson,  or  Chas.  Sumner,  or  Henry  Thoreau,  or  Governor  John 
A.  Andrew,  or  Senator  Howe,  or  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson?  They 
knew  of  Brown's  plans;  they  kept  his  secret;  some,  most  likely  all, 
of  them  aided  him.  Were  they  monomaniacs?  Emerson  said: 
"It  would  be  near  the  truth  to  say  that  all  the  people,  in  proportion 
to  their  sensibility  and  self-respect,  sympathize  with  John  Brown." 
On  the  day  of  Brown's  execution  a  vast  audience  of  sympathizers 
gathered  in  Tremont  Temple,  Boston.  Hon.  J.  Q.  A.  Griffin,  ad 
dressing  this  body,  said:  "The  heinous  offence  of  Pontius-  Pilate, 
in  crucifying  our  Saviour,  whitened  into  virtue  when  compared  to 
that  of  Governor  Wise  in  his  conduct  toward  John  Brown."  What 
was  this  conduct?  The  Governor  had  given  Brown  the  fairest  of 
trials — Brown  himself  admitted  this791 — and  had  him  defended  by 
the  ablest  of  counsel ;  he  gave  more  than  reasonable  time  for  appeal 
or  action  of  the  Legislature,  which  was  then  the  pardoning  power 


™>Kans.  Miscellanies,  97. 

791Hart's  Source  Book  Am.  Hist.,  295. 


NORT11EKN   REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  355 

in  Virginia  in  treason  charges;  finally,  Governor  Wise  allowed  him 
to  be  hanged  pursuant  to  law  and  verdict.  Was  Griffin  a  mono 
maniac?  His  audience  received  this  declaration  with  approval: 
had  a  great  and  powerful  body  in  the  Xorth  become  dangerous 
fanatics  and  monomaniacs?  If  insane,  so  much  the  greater  reason 
for  Southern  alarm  and  for  the  desire  that  the  maddening  agita 
tion  be  stopped;  if  sane,  only  sane  people  commit  or  abet,  or  are 
accessories  to,  murder. 


XV. 

FROM  HARPER'S  FERRY  TO  THE  END. 

THE    LINCOLN    REPUBLICANS    IN    CONGRESS    ABET    THE    TREASON    IN 

KANSAS. 

VI.   The  Subversionists  at  the  Helm. 

Most  of  Brown's  immediate  followers  forfeited  their  lives  at 
Harper's  Ferry,  while  he  himself  passed  into  the  presence  of  the 
Supreme  Judge  of  the  Universe  through  an  ignominious  death. 
But  the  end  was  not  yet.  Emboldened  because  in  Lincoln's  election 
every  assurance  had  been  given  that  the  Federal  Government  would 
not  interfere  with  their  crusade,  the  abolition-incendiary-insurrec 
tionists  gave  undoubted  evidence  of  a  continuance  of  all  phases 
of  their  fight  against  the  South.  The  few  months  intervening 
between  Harper's  Ferry  and  the  withdrawal  of  the  South  from 
what  they  maintained  was  but  a  nominal  allegiance  to  a  govern 
ment  which  would  not  restrain  infractions  of.  the  Constitution,  nor 
enforce  the  will  of  the  majority  in  the  whole  Union,  were  months 
of  unabated  prosecution  from  the  North,  and  of  unbroken  suspense 
to  the  South:  Some  idea  of  the  abolition  movements  may  be  gath 
ered  from  the  following  from  the  New  York  Tribune,  January  9, 
1860  :— 

"INCENDIABIES  —  WOBSE  AND  WOBSE.— Another 
freight  of  incendiary  matter  was  dispatched  throughout  the  slave 
states  yesterday  by  the  New  York  Herald.  It  was  composed  of  a 
summary,  filling  a  page  of  that  inflammatory  journal,  of  all  the 
slave  insurrections  that  have  ever  taken  place,  with  all  their  ex 
citing  and  frightful  details.  It  is  an  exposition  going  to  show  the 
slaves  and  disaffected  poor  whites  in  the  South  just  what  has  been 
done,  and  what  can  be  done  again  in  the  wa,y  of  a  bloody  uprising 
to  throw  off  the  galling  yoke  of  slavery.  This  exposition  is  accom 
panied  by  commentaries  to  show  how  great  is  the  apprehension  and 
dread  felt  by  the  South  of  these  fearful  social  convulsions,  and 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  357 

what  horrors  they  inflict  and  leave  in  their  train.  The  whole  thing 
appears  to  be  got  up  with  the  malevolent  design  of  producing  a 
repetition  of  the  horrible  scenes  there  depicted  for  the  purpose  of 
thereby  gaining  some  political  advantage  over  the  Kepublicans  in 
some  present  or  future  contest  in  the  North.  This  diabolical  pur 
pose  peers  through  the  whole  of  the  exposition  as  it  has  done  in 
the  general  drift  of  that  newspaper  for  weeks.  It  discloses  a 
depth  of  treachery  to  Southern  society,  for  the  mere  chance  of  a 
contingent  or  remote  political  advantage  in  the  North,  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  parallel.  We  venture  to  say  that  the  reckless 
malignity  of  the  effort  cannot  be  equaled  out  of  the  columns  of 
the  same  journal."792 

Hence,  it  was  the  continuation  of  the  external  infleuces  which 
were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  negro  that  produced  the  most  dan 
ger.  Fear  of  unaided  or  unincited  slave  uprisings  had  no  very 
strong  or  widespread  hold  upon  the  Southern  mind.  It  was  the 
growing  numbers  of  what  charity  induces  us  to  call  the  lunatic 
white  abolitionists — men  who  could  deliberately  hack  to  pieces 
their-  fellow-men;  men  who  could  waylay  soldiers  of  the  United 
States  and  strew  the  prairies  with  their  corpses;  men  who  could 
steal  upon  United  States  forts  in  the  blackness  of  night  and  com 
mit  arson  to  the  imminent  danger  of  shrieking  women  and  weeping 
children ;  men  who  would  rush  over  the  North  like  flaming  meteors 
arousing  sympathy  and  gathering  men  and  money  in  support  of 
rebellion,  treason,  arson,  murder, — and  do  this  in  abetment  of 
armed  marauding  bodies  which  made  travel  alone  upon  the  public 
highway  suicidal,  and  that  had  driven  women  and  children  to 
wander  alone  and  defenceless  upon  the  open  prairies,  or  to  seek 
protection  from  savage  Indians,  as  vouched  for  by  a  Northern 
Congressional  committee.783 — from  a  repetition  of  these  barbarous 
brutalities  the  South  asked  to  be  protected.  Of  course,  the  younger 
reader  not  familiar  with  the  history  of  that  crucial  period,  nat 
urally  asks  for  the  connection  between  Lincoln's  party  and  such 
depredations.  As  a  political  party,  it  is  but  fair  to  inquire,  what 
connection  had  the  Lincoln  party  with  the  gathering  of  the  muni 
tions  of  war,  with  the  rebellion  against  both  Territorial  and  Fed- 


T92Pike's  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  464. 

T93Reports  of  Committee,  36  Cong.,  1  sess.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  255,  p.  6. 


358  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

eral  authority, — with  the  murder  of  Federal  soldiers  upon  the 
plains  of  Kansas  ?  A  very  important  connection.  In  the  words  of 
Congressman  John  B.  Clark,  used  by  him  in  a  minority  report  to 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  I860,  Lincoln's  party  "voted  for 
and  passed  through  this  House  a  bill  relieving  by  its  provisions  all 
felons,  horse-thieves,  burglars,  murderers,  and  even  the  Ossawa- 
tomie  assassins,  from  all  responsibility  for  their  crimes  which  they 
had  perpetrated  in  violation  of  all  the  laws  of  that  [Kansas]  Ter 
ritory  during  a  series  of  years.  .  .  .  This  bill  not  only  pardons 
every  offence  and  crime  known  to  the  criminal  calendar,  which 
had  been  committed  in  any  part  of  that  widespread  Territory,  but 
it  took  the  further  unprecedented  and  most  extraordinary  step 
of  giving  to  every  person  in  Kansas  entire  immunity  from  every 
crime  which  they  might  thereafter  commit  against  the  laws  of  that 
unfortunate  Territory." 

This  is  a  grave  charge,  but  hear  the  language  of  the  law  itself. 
It  provides  "that  criminal  prosecutions  now  pending  in  any  of  the 
courts  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas  imputing  to  any  person  or  per 
sons  the  crime  of  treason  against  the  United  States  and  all  crimi 
nal  prosecutions,  by  information  or  indictment,  against  any  per 
son  or  persons  for  any  alleged  violation  or  disregard  whatever  of 
what  are  usually  known  as  the  laws  of  the  legislature  of  Kansas, 
shall  be  forthwith  dismissed  by  the  courts  where  such  prosecutions 
may  be  pending,  and  every  person  who  may  be  restrained  of  his 
liberty  shall  be  released  therefrom  without  delay.  Nor  shall  there 
hereafter  be  instituted  any  criminal  prosecution  in  any  of  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  said  Territory,  against  any 
person  or  persons  for  any  such  charge  of  treason  in  said  Territory 
prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act,  or  any  violation  or  disregard  of 
said  legislative  enactments  at  any  time."7£ 

Thus  the  abolition-Republicans,  who  had  control  of  one  branch 
of  the  nation's  governmental  machinery,  became  the  champions 
and  protectors  of  those  charged  with  treason,  for  in  May  previous 
the  Grand  Jury  of  Douglas  county  had  found  indictments  against 
Charles  Robinson,  ex-Governor  A.  H.  Reeder,  and  others,  charg 
ing  them  with  high  treason.  A  few  days  after  this  action  by  the 
jury,  Reeder,  in  disguise,  escaped  into  Illinois. 


™Ib.,  51-2. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  359 

The  bill  is  unquestionably  the  most  remarkable  to  be  found  upon 
the  records  of  Congress.  Kepresentative  Dunn  had  a  pending 
motion  "to  amend  certain  acts  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
Territory  of  Kansas,  and  to  secure  to  the  citizens  of  the  said  Ter 
ritory  their  rights  and  privileges,"  as  he  stated  it.  For  this  he 
substituted  an  amendment  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute  for  the 
original  bill.795  This  substitute-bill  (1)  re-created  the  Territorial 
government  of  Kansas;  (2)  it  kept  up  the  discrimination  against 
free  negroes  and  mulattoes  by  making  "every  white  male  inhabi 
tant"  only,  being  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  an  elector.796  (3)  It  repealed  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  so  far  as  that  bill  announced  its  non-intervention  with  slavery 
in  the  States  and  Territories,  and  so  far  as  that  bill  left  the  "peo 
ple  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,"  and  instead  thereof  revived  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  as  contained  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  March  6, 
1820,  and  made  it  of  full  force  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska.797  (4)  It 
relieved  all  Kansas  criminals  of  all  crimes  whatsoever,  either 
against  the  United  States  or  Kansas  Territory. 

This  bill — this  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States — a  Stygian  blot  upon  a  nation's  legislative  records, — was 
sanctioned  and  passed  July  29,  1856,  by  the  Eepublican-abolition 
party,  that  party  which,  within  four  years  as  the  Lincoln-Republi 
can  party,  had  captured  the  Presidency  and  other  machinery  of 
the  Union.  The  vote  stood  88  to  74.798 

The  bill  was  reported  to  the  Senate  Aug.  11,  1856,  whereupon 
Douglas  moved  to  table — a  quick  and  easy  method  of  killing  a  bill 
or  indefinitely  delaying  it.  On  this  motion  the  vote  was :  Aye,  35 ; 
nay,  12,  and  so  it  was  killed  in  the  Senate.  Those  who  refused  to  vote 
for  tabling  signified  their  endorsement  of  the  bill  either  as  it  came 
to  them  or  after  some  immaterial  modifications.  The  Senators 
who  thus  went  upon  this  ugly  record  were  Bell,  of  New  Hamp 
shire;  Collamer,  of  Vermont;  Fessenden,  of  Maine;  Fish,  of  New 
York:  Foot,  of  Vermont;  Foster,  of  Connecticut;  Hale  and  Sew- 

795In  full  in  House  Journal,  July  29,  1856,  pp.  1309  to  1320. 
7WSec.  5.  p.  1311. 
797Sec.  24,  pp.  1319-20. 
798Ib.,  1322. 


360  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

ard,  of  New  York;  Trumbull,  of  Illinois;  Wade,  of  Ohio;  Wilson, 
of  Massachusetts,  and  Harlan,  of  Iowa.799 

Restless  to  prevent  an  investigation  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  leaders  of  the  rebellion  in  Kansas,  only  one  week  before  this 
time  Senator  Wilson  asked  the  Senate  to  pass  a  resolution  which, 
while  less  sweeping  in  scope  of  benefit,  was  not  less  revolutionary  or 
destructive  of  Constitutional  safeguards.  This  influential  Massa 
chusetts  representative,  who  stood  in  the  front  ranks  of  his  party 
until  after  the  war,  asked  the  Senate  to  pass  this  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to 
report  forthwith  a  resolution  authorizing  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  direct  the  district  attorney  of  the  Territory  of 
Kansas  to  'enter  a  nolle  prosequi  on  each  of  the  indictments  against 
Chas.  Robinson,  G.  W.  Smith,  J.  Jenkins,  John  Brown,  Jr.,  H.  H. 
Williams,  G.  W.  Brown,  and  G.  W.  Deitzler  for  treaspn  against  the 
United  States."800 

With  the  increased  power  which  the  victory  of  the  next  four 
years  gave  the  then  dominant  party,  the  last  vestige  of  security  war 
snatched  from  the  South;  revolution,  ghastly,  pale,  his  bony  fingers 
scattering  the  fragments  of  a  constitution  to>  the  blasts  of  an  al 
ready  bursting  storm,  stood  across  the  pathway  of  our  republic.  In 
the  Senate,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  among  Northern  State 
officials,  negro  insurrection  had  been  taught,  endorsed,  and  through 
such  influences  and  the  support  of  popular  opinion  at  last  at 
tempted.  Northern  guns  had  carried  Northern  resolutions  in  Kan 
sas  ;  President  Lincoln  had  avowed  that  he  could  not  give  a  better 
enforcement  of  indispensable  Federal  laws;  in  Virginia,  John 
Brown  had  plunged  his  Northern-made  pikes  into  the  hearts  of 
whomsoever  questioned  his  right  of  carnage, — in  ratifying  his  acts 
the  North  had  given  greater  evidence  than  ever  of  a  continuance  of 
the  destroyers  of  the  peace  and  happiness  of  the  South.  What  was 
the  South  to  do  ?  The  legislative  record  of  the  party  then  passing  to 
power  assured  the  lawless  faction,  large  and  dangerous,  of  immu 
nity  from  punishment  from  whatsoever  crimes  they  might  commit. 
For  less  cause  the  colonies  severed  their  connection  with  England; 
their  success  brought  applause.  For  less  cause  manufacturing  New 


799Sen.  Journal,  1  and  2  sess.,  34  Cong.,  554. 
.,  515. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  361 

England  refused  to  stand  by  the  Union  in  the  War  of  1812.     In 
our  own  day  the  battleship  Maine  went  down  by  an  unfriendly 
hand, — her  name  became  the  shibboleth  which  passed  the  American 
armies  into  Cuba.    As  a  last  resort,  what  did  the  South  propose  as 
a  remedy?     Let  Eobert  Toombs,  whom  Prof.  Hart,  of  Harvard 
University,  describes  as  "an  old-time  Whig  who  sincerely  loved  the 
Union,  and]  as  an  able  lawyer  understood  the  advantages  of  it,"80 
answer  for  us.     In  a  speech  of  plain  but  prophetic  words  in  the 
United  States  Senate  in  1861,  just  "before  the  final  separation,  he 
said :   "Your  party  says  that  you  will  not  take  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court.     You  said  so  at  Chicago  [in  the  platform  upon 
which  Lincoln  was  elected] ;  you  said  so  in  committee;  every  man 
of  you  in  both  houses  says  so.     What  are  you  going  to  do?    You 
say  we  shall  submit  to  your  construction..  ....  It  is  admitted — 

you  seek  to  outlaw  four  billion  dollars  of  property  of  our  people  in 
the  territories  of  the  United  States.  Is  not  that  a  cause  of  war  ?  .  . 

"You  will  not  regard  confederate  obligations ;  you  will  not  regard 
constitutional  obligations;  you  will  not  regard  your  oaths.  What, 

then,  am  I  to  do?    Am  I  a  freeman? We  have  appealed, 

time  and  time  again,  for  these  constitutional  rights.  You  have  re 
fused  them.  We  appeal  again.  Restore1  us  these  rights  as  we  have 
had  them,  as  your  court  adjudges  them  to  be,  just  as  all  our  people 
have  said  they  are;  redress  these  flagrant  wrongs,  seen  of  all  men, 
and  it  will  restore  fraternity,  and  peace,  and  unity,  to  all  of  us. 
Eefuse  them,  and  what  then?  We  shall  then  ask  you,  cLet  us  de 
part  in  peace.7  Refuse  that  and  you  present  us  war."81 

The  South  sought  to  retire  within  her  own  castle.  When  the 
North  refused  her  that  only  honorable  course,  and  crossed  her 
threshold  to  despoil  her  hearthstone,  then  Southern  valor  struck 
back;  brave,  loving,  loyal,  unconquerable  women  laid  their  sturdy 
warriors  to  rest  here  and  there  thick  over  Virginia's  hills,  in  her 
quiet  valleys ;  or,  further  south,  beneath  the  pines  of  Tennessee  and 
Mississippi,  or  under  the  magnolias  of  Georgia,  or  elsewhere  amid 
Dixie's  trembling  palms,  until  Southern  strength  was  no  more.  To 
the  sleeping — of  both  sides — may  the  evergreen  spring  of  acacia 
speak  of  hope  in  a  glorious  and  undisturbed  immortality  and  the 


wlHart,  Am.  Cont.  Hist  c  Vol.  IV.,  160,  big.  note. 

""Cong.  Globe,  36  Cong"  2  sess.  ;  Hart,  Am.  Cont.  Hist.,  Vol.  IV.,  171. 


362  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

olive  branch  of  peace  proclaim,  "KESCANT  IN  PACEM ;"  but  to 
the  living  the  harvest  was  left:  in  the  North,  undiminished  re 
sources,  unchecked  industries,  unbroken  commerce;803  in  the  South, 
for  many  long  years  a  harvest  of  empty  sleeves,  and,  worse,  empty 
hearts  and  vacant  chairs,  demolished  homes,  annihilated  indus 
tries, — on  every  hand  bleak,  bloody,  barren.  Desolation  sat  upon 
the  grave  of  a  once  happy  land  and  looked  heavenward  with  the 
mute  inquiry,  "How  long  shall  the  wicked  nourish  as  a  green  bay 
tree?"  To  us  now,  a  harvest  of  precious  memories,  a  soil  conse 
crated  with  the  bravest  blood;  a  resuscitated  land;  a  race  problem 
which  cost  350,000  precious  lives,  millions  of  money,  millions  of 
broken  hearts, — a  problem  no  nearer  solved  than  in  the  days  of 
slavery. 

The  Southern  soldier  went  back  to  what  had  once  been  home, 
NOT  through  Northern  charity  or  condescending  magnanimity. 
Even  yet  in  the  wake  of  the  war  such  claims  as  the  following  re 
main  to  bar  the  door  to  forgiveness: 

"Most  of  the  officers  of  high  rank  in  the  Confederate  army  were 

graduates  of  the  Military  Academy  at  West  Point Some  of 

them,  notably  General  Lee,  rushed  into  the  rebel  service  without 
waiting  for  the  United  States  War  Department  to  accept  their  resig 
nation.  But  all  such  ugly  facts  were  suppressed  or  forgotten  in  the 
extreme  anxiety  of  the  victors  lest  they  should  not  be  sufficiently 
magnanimous  toward  the  vanquished." 

Or  this :  "No  such  exhibition  of  mercy  has  been  seen  before  or 
since." 

Magnanimity  and  mercy,  indeed  !  Such  extravagant  declarations 
would  be  amusing  but  for  their  frequenc}r.  The  treatment  of  the 
people  of  the  seceded  States  was  neither  magnanimous  nor  merciful ; 
it  was  DUE  them  to  be  treated  like  citizens  of  any  part  of  the 
Union.  What  one  is  entitled  to  receive  is  not  a  matter  of  gracious 
condescension  on  the  part  of  him  who  renders  the  due — it  is  the 
receiver's  RIGHT.  The  Southern  secessionists  were  neither  crimi 
nals  nor  ambitious  revolutionists ;  only  such  can  be  the  recipients  of 
mercy.  The  South  chose  secession  not  as  an  end  within  itself,  but 
merely  as  the  last  available  means  for  the  preservation  of  most 
sacred  rights.  This  legitimate  choice  involved  many  not  of  the  law- 


803Grant,  Personal  Mem. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  363 

less  Northern  minority,  which  minority  frequently  lost  themselves 
far  from  battlefields  and  merciless  bullets,  who  had  had  no  part  in 
making  the  choice  necessary.  A  nation  staggered  in  mortal  combat 
until  out  of  the  deatb-mould  and  the  damp  of  the  red  field  sprang 
a  new  life  involving  new  conditions.  Both  sides  paid  as  the  fathers 
and  mothers  only  of  most  of  us  can  realize;  yet  the  South  felt  that 
any  other  course  would  have  cost  both  her  political  and  personal 
honor.  That  the  results  of  the  conflict  were  what  we  find  them  by 
no  means  decides  the  right  or  the  wrong  of  the  one  party  or  the 
other;  the  correctness  and  justness  of  the  principles  involved  remain 
subject  to  the  unprejudiced  verdict  of  history.  We  honor  our 
fathers  for  their  choice,  andi  fondly  cherish  the  record  of  their  un 
paralleled  valor ;  we  revere  our  mothers  for  their  Spartan  devotion, 
and  turn  lovingly  to  their  unmurmuring  sacrifices  which  those  of 
less  grander  qualities  of  heart  or  less  strength  of  will  would  not 
have  made.  Had  the  bravest  and  brightest  of  us  lived  then,  we  could 
not  have  done 'more  wisely  or  more  honorably.  Yet  the  South  to 
day  stands  second  to  no  section  in  her  devotion  to  the  American 
Union.  Across  the  hills  of  the  not  distant  future  even  now  begins 
to  break  the  gray  light  of  that  day  which  Father  Ryan  saw  with 
such  sublime  faith : 

The  story  of  the  glory 

Of  the  men  who  wore  the  gray, 
In  their  graves,  so  still; 
The  story  of  the  living, 
Unforgiven  yet  forgiving, 

The  victims  still  of  hate, 

Who  have   forever  clung, 
With  a  love  that  will  not  die, 
To  the  memories  of  our  Past, 

Who  are  patient  and  who  wait 
True  and  faithful  to  the  last, — 
For  the  Easter  morning  sky, 
When  Wrong's  rock  shall  roll  away 

From  the  sepulchre  of  Right, 
And  the  Right  shall  rise  again 

In  the  brightness  of  a  light, 
That  shall  never  fade  away, 

Triumphantly  and  glorious 
To  teach  once  more  to  men, 

The  Conquered  are  victorious. 


364  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

The  Conquered  in  the  strife, 
Thro'  their  children  yet  shall  reign 

By  their  patience  and  their  peace: 
They  shall  fill  the  People's  life, 
From  Right's  ever  virgin  vein, 
With  the  purest  blood  that  flows, 
Made  the  purer  by  our  woes, 

Without  stain  and  without  cease, 
Till  the  children  of  our  foes 
Shall  be  proud  and  glad  to  claim 

And  to  write  upon  one  scroll 
Every  dear  and  deathless  name 

On  our  Southern  muster-roll. 


NOTES. 


THE  SPECIAL  KANSAS-CONGRESSIONAL  EEPORT. 

In  the  text,  some  of  the  page  references  will  not  correspond  to  all 
copies  of  the  special  report.  Most  of  the  pages  were  originally  taken 
from  the  copy  in  the  Kansas  City  Public  Library — to  whose  effi 
cient  librarian,  Mrs.  Whitney,  and  splendid  staff  I  am  indebted  for 
numerous  courtesies.  That  copy  has  a  table  of  contents,  and  from 
it  I  took  the  rotation  of  witnesses  whose  evidence  is  abstracted. 
Afterwards  I  saw  copies  in  Washington,  in  New  York,  and  in  the 
Georgia  State  Library.  Neither  of  these  had  a  table  of  contents  or 
an  index  as  to  the  contents  of  either  report  or  evidence.  There 
were  some  minor  changes  as  to  arrangement  at  least  in  one  copy. 
Some  of  the  pages  refer  to  it,  and  so  will  not  correspond  with  the 
others.  I  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  compare  all  the  printed 
proof  with  either  copy,  and  it  may  be  there  are  a  few  page-misprints. 
However,  a  very  little  search  will  locate  any  quotation;  and  to  the 
greater  number  the  reader  will  turn  without  any  difficulty. 

ELECTION  OF  MARCH  30. 

(These  observations  are  applicable  equally  to  the  first  election.) 

Since  no  analysis  of  the  numerous  depositions  concerning  this 
election  is  here  possible,  in  addition  to  the  argument  given,  a  state 
ment  of  some  fundamental  rules  will  help  us  to  see  the  error  of 
relying  upon  the  conclusions  propounded  by  the  majority  report. 

The  comparison,  by  the  majority,  based  upon  the  census  taken 
some  time  prior  to  the  election,  argues  nothing — more  especially 
when  the  discrepancy  was.  explained  by  positive  evidence  of  the 
temporary  absence  of  many  residents  at  the  taking  of  the  census. 
Were  that  not  explained,  the  majority  method  can  be  of  no  legal 
or  historical  value.  A  similar  and  even  more  reliable  method  of 
finding  illegal  votes  was  used  in  the  contested  election  case  of 
Biddle  et  als.  vs.  Wing,  in  the  Michigan  Territorial  election  for 
Congressional  representative  in  1826.  In  that  case  the  tax  books 


366  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

were  used.  Said  the  committee  of  the  House,  "The  discrepancy 
which  is  shown  to  exist  between  the  poll -lists  for  the  county  of 
Wayne  and  the  lists  of  persons  assessed  for  county  and  territorial 
taxes,  establishes  little  or  nothing  in  the  case."  Then,  pointing 
out  that  many  more  had  voted  at  a  given  point  than  even  resided 
in  that  district  or  precinct,  they  said  such  fact  did  not  argue  that 
the  excess  was  illegal,  since  citizens  who  lived  outside  of  an  election 
district  might  legally  vote  at  some  other  point.  (Contested  Elec 
tions  H.  R.  U.  8.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  511.) 

The  extravagant  claims  in  the  majority  report  can  be  reached 
only  by  violating  fundamental  and  long  and  well  recognized  prin 
ciples  for  governing  all  properly  conducted  investigations.  The 
matters  under  their  investigation  come  under  no  class  which  can 
possibly  be  exceptions;  no  sane  mind  can  possibly  conceive  of  even 
a  Congressional  committee  proceeding  without  something  by  which 
to  be  guided.  The  evidence  they  have  left  us  is  exempt  from  no 
scrutiny  which  the  law  and  rational  inquiry  would  not  apply  to  any 
search  for  the  truth.  The  conclusions  of  the  historian,  unless  he 
can  bring  new  light  to  bear,  unless  he  can  adduce  facts  not  before 
the  investigating  tribunal,  is  just  as  much  bound  by  the  proper 
mode  of  procedure,  and  must  abide  by  the  conclusions  to  which  it 
brings  him,  as  though  he  were  serving  upon  the  original  investiga 
tion. 

In  1840  a  contest  went  up  to  Congress  from  New  Jersey.  The 
committee  but  re-stated  a  time-honored  rule  in  these  words :  "Mere 
hearsay  djeclarations  of  the  alleged  voter,  a&  to  the  fact  of.  his 
having  voted,  have  been  uniformly  rejected."  (Contested  Elec 
tions,  Vol.  II.,  p.  24.) 

In  a  Pennsylvania  case  which  came  to  Congress  about  the  same 
time,  the  committee  said,  "The  rule  upon  which  the  committee 
reject  all  hearsay  evidence  they  conceive  too  well  settled  and  too 
clear  and  just  to  require  any  argument.  If  all  experience  has 
shown  that  if  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  most  petty  and 
trifling  matters  between  man  and  man  there  is  no  security  for  truth 
without  the  sanction  of  an  oath,  every  one  must  admit  that  in  a 
controversy  which  enlists  the  strongest  passions  of  our  nature,  often 
stimulated  by  ambition  and  party  prejudice  and  animosity,  we 
cannot  safely  dispense  with  this  great  security.  If  evidence  of  this 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  367 

character  were  received  it  might  be  manufactured  with  impunity 
and  to  any  amount,  and  no  representative  could  be  secure  in  his  seat 
for  a  single  day."  (II.,  34.) 

In  1858  another  committee  laid  down  even  more  plainly  the  well 
recognized  rules,  and  said  that  the  only  exceptions  were  those  given 
in  Greenleaf  s  Evidence — under  none  of  which  exceptions  come  the 
matters  before  the  Kansas  investigating  committee.  (/&.,  264.) 

An  application  of  these  rules  destroys  much.,  and  in  some 
cases  all  upon  which  the  majority  version  depends,  of  their  so- 
called  evidence.  For  instance:  The  Lecompton  legislature  con 
sisted  of  twenty-six  members  of  the  House.  The  majority  of  the 
committee  insisted  on  the  illegal  election  of  fourteen  of  these;  they 
admit  the  legal  election  of  twelve  (in  Iww  many  histories  do  we 
find  this  fact?).  The  seventh  representative  district,  composed  of 
four  voting  places,  or  precincts :  Bull  Creek,  Pottawatomie  Creek, 
Big  Sugar,  and  Little  Sugar,  was  entitled  to  four  representatives. 
These  are  put  down  as  illegally  elected.  For  this  they  rely  upon 
the  statements  of  six  witnesses.  The  greater  part  of  what  these  six 
men  say  is  about  thus :  "I  did  not  see"—  "I  think"—  "they  told 
me  or  said" —  "I  reckon.'' 

Look  at  Westf all's  hypothetical  and  hearsay  declarations:  "I 
think  there  were  three  hundred"  from  Missouri—  "I  think  nine- 
tenths  of  those  who  voted  were  residents  of  Missouri."—  "I  think 
he  has  never  taken  his  family  to  the  Ter."—  "I  think  I  saw  five 
hundred  in  the  two  camps."-  "A  great  many  told  me  they 
voted."  (Evidence,  p.  225.) 

Take  the  next,  Wilson:  "I  think  there  was  but  one  white  fam 
ily"  before  me —  "I  should  suppose  that  there  were  not  less  than 
200  men  there  non-residents"—  "they  told  me  they  were  from 
Mo."-  "They  sand  they  were  coming  to  vote" —  "Our  settlers 
were  from  Mo.,  111.,"  &c.,  "I  think"—  "Those  I  talked  with  said 
it  was  their  intention"-  "They  said  they  had  voted,  though  I  did 
not  see  them  vote" —  "I  do  not  suppose  I  saw  more  than  twelve  or 
fifteen  men  I  knew  to  be  settlers"  [witness  did  not  reach  voting 
place  until  ten  o'clock,  how  many  residents  had  voted  and  had 
gone?] —  "As  near  as  I  can  judge  from  conversation" —  "In  my 
judgment"  free-State  candidate  had  legal  majority—  "I  think 
they  all  voted."  (Evidence,  p.  227.) 


368  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Take  Gearhart:  Saw  a  great  many  strangers  from  Missouri, 
"lout  I  did  not  see  them  vote" —  "I  should  reckon  there  were  200 
persons  I  did  know" —  "I  think  there  could  not  have  been  more 
than  fifty  voters  in  the  precinct."-  "I  do  not  think  there  were 
ten  from  our  neighborhood  there  [witness  arrived  at  "10  or  11" 
and  "staid  at  the  polls  only  two  or  three  hours"]—  "I  heard  be 
fore  I  started  that  Missourians  were  there" — •  "I  did  not  see  any 
of  the  Missourians  vote,  though  they  said  they  voted" —  "I  do 
not  know  exactly,  but  I  think  Dr.  Westfall  lived  in  Mo." —  "I  do 
not  think  [Younger]  has  any  claim  in  the  Ter."-  "I  never  heard 
that  his  family  lived  in  the  Ter."  (Evidence,  p.  228.) 

This  was  their  evidence  of  non-resident  voters  in  the  Bull  Creek 
precinct.  Apply  the  legal  rules — those  unquestioned  guides  which 
were  followed  before  and  which  have  been  adhered  to  since  the  com 
mittee  in  the  Michigan  case  in  1826  said,  "Indeed,  nothing  short 
of  the  impossibility  of  ascertaining  for  whom  the  majority  of  votes 
have  been  given  ought  to  vacate  an  election";  apply  the  rule  used 
in  the  Pennsylvania  case,  where  the  committee  said  that  if  just  such 
evidence  as  the  above  were  to  prevail  "no  representative  could  be 
secure  in  his  seat  for  a  single  day" ;  go  to  Kansas  herself  and  apply 
the  measure  of  validity  announced  in  G-illiland  v.  Schuyler  (9 
Kans.  Rep.,  569),  where  "it  was  held  that  statements  of  third  par 
ties  as  to  the  number  of  times  and  the  names  under  which  they 
voted  was  hearsay  and  incompetent" — and  we  cannot  escape  the 
conclusion  that  the  Southern  party  had  a  legal  majority.  The 
returning  board  reported  sixteen  free-State  votes  for  one  Northern 
candidate  and  nine  each  for  the  other  three;  and  nowhere  can  we 
find  any  evidence  to  show  that  any  Southern  candidate  received  a 
less  legal,  fair  number;  in  other  words,  a  legal  majority  is  shown 
for  the  Southern  candidates,  and  that  is  the  test.  (See  also  Mc- 
Crary's  Amer.  Law  of  Elections,  p.  240.) 

This  must  suffice  to  illustrate  the  points  at  issue.  The  usual  way 
of  adding  all  estimated  illegal  votes,  determined  throughout  the 
Territory  by  various  incompetent  witnesses,  and  then  asserting, 
for  instance,  "6,218  votes  were  polled,  mostly  illegal  ones  by  Mis 
sourians,"  therefore  the  majority  of  the  Lecompton  legislature 
were  illegally  elected  , — is  a  fraus  pia  in  historical  method  which 
will,  likely,  never  cease  to  burden  our  literature  until  the  "blind 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  369 

bigotry  of  the  doctrinaire  which  infects  so  many  worthy  persons" 
shall  have  passed  into  deserved  oblivion. 

SLAVE  LAWS  OF  THE  LECOMPTON  LEGISLATURE. 

Perhaps  no  other  code  on  earth  ever  met  a  stronger  torrent  of 
abuse  than  did  the  slave  provisions  enacted  by  the  Southern  legis 
lature  elected  March  30,  1855.  The  provisions  which  met  this  fate 
at  the  hands  of  the  North  are  those  of  the  thirteen  sections  of  the 
chapter  on  page  715  of  The  Laws  of  1855.  Briefly  they  are: 

1.  Actually  raising  slave  rebellion;  2:  Aiding  in  raising  slave 
rebellion;  3.  Printing  or  circulating  books  to  excite  revolt,,  insur 
rection,,  or  conspiracy  among  slaves;  4.  Stealing  or  decoying  away 
slaves;  5.  Aiding  in  same;  6.  Bringing  into  Kansas  a  stolen  slave: 
punishment  on  conviction  of  either  of  these  was  death  or,,  in  some 
cases,  confinement  in  penitentiary;  7.  Harboring  or  inducing 
slaves  to  escape;  8.  Concealing  slaves  escaped  from  other  States; 

9.  Eescuing   from   officer  escaped   slaves:    penalty,   penitentiary; 

10.  Eefusing  to  assist  in  capturing  escaping  slaves :  fine,  $100  to 
$500;   11.   Printing  in 'the  State  matter   "calculated  to  produce 
a    disorderly,    dangerous    or    rebellious    disaffection    among    the 
slaves;"  12.  "If  any  free  persons,  by  speaking  or  writing,  assert 
or  maintain  that  persons  have  no  right  to  hold  slaves  in  this  ter 
ritory:"    penitentiary;    13.    Persons    conscientiously    opposed    to 
slavery,  or  who  did  not  "admit  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  this  ter 
ritory,"  were  incompetent  for  jury  service. 

Taken  in  connection  with  the  then  existing  abolition  conditions ; 
viewed  in  the  light  of  the  dangers  actually  menacing  their  lives 
by  reasons  of  the  abolition  methods,  and  it  readily  is  seen  that 
these  laws  are  merely  protective  and  designed  to  be  preventative; 
they  imposed  no  restriction  which  actual  conditions  did  not  make 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  life  and  for  domestic  peace  even  more 
than  for  the  protection  of  property.  They  vindicated  the  dignity 
of  the  laws — since  there  were  even  those  who  taught  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  Union  had  no  binding  power;  they  did  not  re 
strain  a  proper  discussion  of  the  policy  of  abolition  as  a  question 
which  admitted  the  existing  pro-slavery  laws  to  be  no  less  binding 
than  any  laws. 

The  provisions  of  this  legislature  which  affected  the  negro  him- 
24 


370  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

self  were  liberal.  Reaffirming  the  rules  laid  down  by  Congress  in 
1793  and  in  1850  for  returning  to  other  jurisdictions  fugitive 
slaves,  the  legislature  provided  against  the  abuse  of  the  law  or  the 
kidnapping  of  free  negroes:  "No  person  shall  take  or  remove  any 
such  fugitive,  or  do  any  act  toward  such  removal,  unless"  he  shall 
first  have  complied  with  the  strict  requirements  of  the  law,  under 
heavy  penalty. 

This  much- abused  legislature  did  not  stop  at  this.  It  went  fur 
ther,  and  in  chapter  74  formulated  a  most  remarkable  law.  It 
gave  slaves,  either  resident  or  escaping  from  other  States,  privi 
leges  not  even  found  in  the  national  laws.  This  was  tfAn  Act  to 
enable  persons  held  in  .slavery  to  sue  for  their  freedom."  It  pro 
vided  :  "Any  person  held  in  slavery  may  petition  the  district  court, 
or  judge  thereof  in  vacation,  for  leave  to  sue,  as  a  poor  person,  in 
order  to  establish  his  right  to  freedom."  The  court  was  required 
to  see  that  such  party  had  "reasonable  liberty  to  attend  his  counsel 
and  the  court,  and  that  he  be  not  subject  to  any  severity  on  ac 
count  of  his  application  for  freedom."  Added  to  this  was  a  liberal 
provision  enabling  the  negro  to  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court. 
(Laws  of  1855,  pp.  881-2-3.) 

Also,  in  happy  contrast  to  the  bitter  anti-negro  position  of  the 
free-State  party,  the  Lecompton  government  opened  its  protecting 
arms  to  the  free  negro  already  in  the  Territory  in  no  small  com 
parative  unmbers — the  census  of  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1855,  reported 
151  free  negroes  and  192  slaves;  nor  were  free  negroes  from  other 
jurisdictions  forbidden  the  pursuit  of  happiness  and  safety  under 
this  government  provided  by  Southern  men  for  Kansas. 

NORTHERN  "LIBERTY  LAWS." 

Perhaps  nothing  else  in  Northern  history  illustrates  more  forci 
bly  the  growth  of  the  deep,  bitter,  uncompromising  determination 
on  the  part  of  that  section  to  nullify  and  override  the  Constitu 
tion  and  all  laws  of  Congress  which  did  not  meet  Northern  ap 
proval,  so  much  as  do  what  writers  usually  denominate  as  "Per 
sonal  Liberty  Laws."  The  various  "liberty  laws"  passed  by  ten 
Northern  States  are  such  pronounced  nullification  that  the  reso 
lutions  passed  several  years  before  by  a  mere  convention — having 
no  such  dignity  as  a  legislative  body — of  South  Carolina  become 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  371 

insignificant  on  comparison.  These  Northern  laws  involve  every 
single  element  of  the  doctrine  of  State  secession.  Not  only  are 
they  nullification  in  design  and  secessionist  in  effect,  but  they  repre 
sent  a  minority  clamor,  which  refused  to  submit  upon  any  terms, 
and  hence  are  rebellious ;  while  the  secession  of  the  South  had  the 
high  justification  of  resting  its  demands,  compliance  with  which 
would  have  prevented  the  move,  upon  the  will  of  the  majority  of 
the  entire  people  of  the  Union.  The  reason  why  the  South's  de 
mands  were  not  met  was  because  the  nullifying  Northern  faction 
had  succeeded  in  muzzling  the  functions  of  the  G-overnment  which 
was  entrusted  with  the  preservation  of  the  Constitutional  guaran 
tees.  Thus  Northern  nullification  went  unchecked  and  all  of  its 
co-ordinate  agencies  were  left  to  pour  their  hail  of  ruin  upon  South 
ern  rights. 

The  purpose  of  this  note  is  to  let  some  of  the  "liberty  laws" 
speak  in  their  own  language.  Follow  the  changes  in  Connecticut. 

In  1838  that  State  recognized  the  Congressional  and  Constitu 
tional  validity  of  the  fugitive  slave  laws  by  providing  for  the  re 
turn  of  "any  person,  legally  held  to  service  or  labor  in  any  State  or 
territory  of  the  United  States,  [who]  shall  escape  into  this  State." 
Should  a  jury  be  called  to  try  the  alleged  fugitive,  then  this  Con 
necticut  law  said  "that  no  person  shall  be  qualified  to  sit  as  juror 
in  said  case  who  believes  that  there  is  not  constitutionally,  or 
legally,  a  slave  in  the  United  States."  (This  provision  is  strik 
ingly  similar  to  a  jury  provision  passed  by  the  Lecompton  legisla 
ture.)  But  in  1844  Connecticut  passed  a  law  forbidding  a  "judge, 
justice  of  the  peace,  or  other  officer,  appointed  under  the  aumority 
of  this  State,"  "as  sucli"  "to  serve  any  warrant  or  process  for  th« 
arrest"  of  any  person  "claimed  to  be  a  fugitive  from  service  or 
labor  as  a  slave,  under  the  laws  of  any  other  State  or  country ;"  all 
State  officers  were  forbidden  to  issue  certificates  for  the  detention 
or  removal  of  such  fugitive,  and  such  certificate  was  declared  "ut 
terly  void ;"  "provided,  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  con 
strued  to  impair  any  rights  which,  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  may  pertain  to  any  person,  to  whom,  by  the  laws  of 
any  other  State,  labor  or  service  may  be  due,  from  any  fugitive 
escaping  into  this  State,  or  to  prevent  the  exercise  in  this  State 
of  any  powers  which  may  have  been  conferred  by  Congress  on  any 


372  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

judge,  or  other  officer,  of  the  United  States,  in  relation  to  such 
rights.     (Incorporated  also  in  Statutes  of  1854,  p.  798.) 

This  last  not  only  withdrew  the  support  of  the  State,  but  it  crip 
pled  and  virtually  annulled  the  Federal  law  then  in  force,  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  Federal  law  had  consigned  much  of  its  enforce 
ment  to  State  officers,  relying  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  various 
States  to  carry  it  out  in  their  respective  jurisdictions.  Such  laws 
as  this  helped  to  produce  the  necessity  for  the  re-enactment  and 
amendment  of  the  Federal  law  as  contained  in  the  fugitive  slave 
law  of  1850.  Therefore,  it  was  the  bad  faith  of  Northern  States 
which  produced  the  law  of  1850;  and  not,  as  is  sometimes  claimed, 
the  law  of  1850  which  caused  the  "liberty  laws/'  The  law  of  1850 
merely  put  the  North  to  looking  round  for  more  pronounced 
methods  of  nullification.  This  new  method  Connecticut  devised 
in  1854  in  "An  Act  for  the  Defence  of  Liberty  in  this  State." 

This  last  legislation  was  a  shrewd  piece  of  nullification.  It  pro 
vided  a  heavy  penalty  for  falsely  and  maliciously  representing  a 
person  to  be  a  fugitive  slave.  When  a  party  was  so  changed,  "the 
truth  of  any  declaration,  representation  or  pretence,  that  any  person 
being  or  having  been  in  this  State  is  or  was  a  slave,  owes  or  did  owe 
service  or  labor  to  any  other  person  or  persons,  shall  not  be  deemed 
proved,  except  by  the  testimony  of  at  least  two  credible  witnesses 
testifying  to  facts  directly  tending  to  establish  the  truth  of  such 
declaration,  pretence,  or  representation,  or  by  legal  evidence  equiva 
lent  thereto."  What  the  "equivalent"  evidence  was  is  hard  to 
imagine,  because :  "Sec.  4.  Upon  the  trial  of  any  prosecution  arising 
under  this  act,  no  deposition  shall  be  admitted  as  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  any  statement  in  such  deposition  contained."  (Connt. 
Statutes  of  1855,  p.  799.) 

The  law  was  backed  by  a  penalty  of  five  thousand  dollars  and 
imprisonment  for  five  years.  No  exceptions  are  made  in  case  of 
actions  before  even  Federal  officers,  or  those  proceeding  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States.  This  not  only  withdrew  State  support, 
but  it  made  it  an  offence  to  proceed  as  per  the  provisions  of  the 
United  States  laws.  The  Federal  law  declared  that  on  trial  of 
a  fugitive  slave  "satisfactory  proof  being  made  by  deposition  or 
affidavit  in  writing"  duly  taken,  or  by  "other  satisfactory  testimony 
duly  taken  and  certified"  by  the  proper  officer  in  the  State  from 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  373 

which  the  slave  fled,  certificate  of  removal  should  be  given.  But 
to  make  such  proof  by  deposition,  under  the  Connecticut  law  con 
stituted  an  offence  incurring  an  enormous  fine  and  a  term  in  the 
penitentiary. 

It  will  be  impossible  here  to  give  more  than  one  more  represen 
tative  instance.  It  is  from  the  legislature  of  Vermont,  at  the  Oc 
tober  Term,  1858 : 

"Resolved,  That  all  laws  of  Congress  which  recognize  the  right 
of  property  in  man,  or  deprive  any  person  of  liberty  without  due 
process  of  law  and  a  jury  trial,  or  provide  that  any  person  shall  be 
delivered  up,  as  owing  service  to  another,  without  trial,  are  uncon 
stitutional,  void,  and  of  no  effect. 

"Resolved,  That  property  in  slaves  exists  only  by  the  positive 
law  of  force  in  the  States  creating  it.  The  moment  it  passes  from 
under  the  operation  of  those  laws,  it  is  property  no  longer. 

"Resolved  further,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
That  the  doctrine  maintained  by  a  majority  of  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  .  .  .  has  no  warrant  in 
the  Constitution,  or  in  the  legislative  or  judicial  history  of  the 
country. 

"Resolved,  That  these  extra-judicial  opinions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  are  a  dangerous  usurpation  of  power,  and  have  no  binding 
authority  upon  Vermont,  or  the  people  of  the  United  States." 

With  these  fearful  pronunciamentoes  she  coupled  the  most  un 
mistakable  secession  doctrine : 

"Resolved,  That  whenever  the  government  or  judiciary  of  the 
United  States  refuses  or  neglects  to  protect  the  citizens  of  each 
State  in  their  lives  or  liberty,  when  in  another  State  or  Territory, 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  sovereign  and  independent  States  of 
this  Union  to  protect  their  own  citizens  at  whatever  cost."  (Re 
solves  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Vt.f  Oct.,  1858,  pp.  67  and  68.) 

Even  so !  The  Southern  States  each  for  herself  exercised  this 
eternal,  inherent,  inalienable  right  of  an  independent  sovereign 
because  Vermont  and  numerous  other  Northern  States  denied  the 
sacredness  of  the  only  possible  common  arbiter ;  denied  the  binding 
power  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  nation's  legislature; 
because  Lincoln  and  the  Republicans  of  his  administration  per 
mitted  the  Government  thus  to  be  insulted;  because  no  hope  of  a 


374  NORXHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

substantial  character  was  offered  that  the  mad  allies  of  these  nulli 
fying  and  rebellious  State  governments  would  not  continue  to  in 
vade  the  South  with  servile  insurrection,  and  overrun  the  common 
Territories  with  cannon  and  bayonet,  borne  by  an  emigration  in 
cubated  by  hoarded  and  often  ill-gotten  Northern  wealth.  These 
were  the  causes  of  the  Civil  War.  The  existence  of  President 
McKinley  did  not  cause  his  assassination;  the  existence  of  slavery, 
or  its  use  by  the  South,  did  not  came  the  Civil  War.  Had  that 
good  man  never  have  existed  he  would  never  have  been  assassinated ; 
but  shall  we  excuse  the  foul  deed  because  it  found  something  upon 
which  to  vent  its  fury  ?  Neither  with  justness  can  we  hold  slavery 
responsible  for  the  awful  civil  and  physical  conditions  which  the 
North  used  it  to  produce. 


AUTHORITIES. 


Adams,  Henry.     New  England  Federalism. 

Adams,  John  Q.     Works. 

Adams,  N.     Views  of  Slavery.     (Boston,  1854.) 

Adams'  Life  of  Plumer. 

Alison's  History  of  Europe.     (London,  1875.) 

American  and  Eng.  Encyclopaedia  of  Law. 

American  Historical  Association,  various  documents  of. 

American  State  Papers.     These  are  U.  S.  Government  Records. 

This  series  of  publications  "contain  reprints  of  the  important  documents  of 
all  classes  from  1789  to  1833,  and  of  some  classes  up  to  1838,  also  many  others 
which  had  never  before  been  printed."  The  reprint  was  made  necessary 
owing  to  want  of  proper  supervision  of  the  public  printing  during  the  early 
years  of  the  government  and  the  destruction  of  the  Capitol  in  1814.  They  "  are 
doubtless  among  the  most  valuable  public  records  ever  provided  for  by  Con 
gress."  They  are  arranged  in  ten  classes,  as  follows  : 

I.  Foreign  Relations:  1st  to  20th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

II.  Indian  Affairs:    1st  to  19th  Congress. 

III.  Finance:    1st  to  20th  Congress,  1st  sess. 

IV.  Commerce  and  Navigation:    1st  to  17th  Congress. 
V.  Military  Affairs :    1st  to  25th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

VI.  Naval  Affairs :    3d  to  24th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
VII.  Postoffice  Department:    1st  to  22d  Congress. 
VIII.  Public  Lands:    1st  to  24th  Congress,  2d  sess. 
IX.  Claims:    1st  to  17th  Congress. 
X.  Miscellaneous:    1st  to  17th  Congress. 

AMERICAN  ARCHIVES:     A  Documentary  History  of  the  Origin  and  Progress 
of  the  North  American  Colonies  to  th«  Final  Ratification  of  the  Constitu 
tion.     Printed  under  the  authority  of  Congress. 
Andrews,  E.  Benj.     History  of  the  United  States. 
Annals  of  Congress.    Debates  and  Proceedings  to  1824. 
Armstrong,  S.  C.     Twenty- two  Years  of  Hampton   (Va.)   Institute. 
Arnold,  C.  H.     Universal  Hist.  U.  S.  A.   (1790). 

Bancroft,  Geo.     History  of  the  United  States. 

Bancroft,  H.  H.,  Works. 

Ballagh,  Jas.  C.    A  Hist,  of  Slavery  in  Virginia. 

Barrington,  F.  H.    Kansas  Day. 

Barrows,  Wm.     Oregon  :    The  Struggle  for  Possession. 

Bell's  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Lincoln. 


376  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Benton,  Thos.  H.    Thirty  Years'  View. 

Benton,  Thos.  H.    Abridgement  of  Cong.  Debates. 

Memorial  Ohio  Legislature  as  to  Ord.  1787:  Vol.  III.,  405-6.  Vol.  V.,  461,  petition 
Amer.  Abolition  Society.  Note,  Vol.  III.,  an  instance  where  Congress,  by 
vote  of  20  to  5,  legalized  the  carrying  of  slave  property  into  Louisiana  Territory. 

Blackmar,  F.  W.    The  Life  of  Dr.  C.  Robinson. 

Black,  Alex.    The  Story  of  Ohio. 

Boston  Transcript. 

Brewington,  J.  D.     The  War  in  Kansas   (1856). 

Brown,  W.  G.    The  Lower  South  in  Am.  Hist. 

Bryant,  Joshua.    Negro  Insurrection  in  Demerara. 

Bryce,  James.     The  American  Commonwealth. 

Burgess,  John  W.    The  Middle  Period. 

Burgess,  J.  W.     The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution. 

Burnet's  Notes.    Historical  of  Ohio.     (Cincinnati,  1847.) 

Bucher,  Carl.     Industrial  Evolution. 

Calahan.     The  Mastery  of  the  Pacific. 

Campbell,  Sir  Geo.    White  and  Black. 

Campbell's  Political  History  of  Michigan. 

Carey.     The  Slave  Trade:    Domestic  and  Foreign. 

Carr,  Lucien   ( native  of  Mo. ) ,     History  of  Missouri. 

Censuses  of  1850,  1860,  1900. 

Chadwick.    The  Life  of  Theo.  Parker. 

Chalmers,  Geo.     Political  Annals  of  the  United  Colonies.     (London,  1780.) 

Channing,  Edw.     The  United  States  of  America. 

Clark,  Jas.  F.     Nineteenth  Century  Questions. 

Coffin,  Joshua.    An  Account  of  Some  Slave  Insurrections. 

Cooley,  Thos.  M.     Constitutional  Limitations. 

Cooley,  Thos.  M.     History  of  Michigan. 

Cooley,  Thos.  M.    Amer.  Const.  History. 

Confederate  Military  History.      (Atlanta.) 

Congressional  Election  Cases   (Law). 

Connelley,  W.  E.    The  Public  Life  of  John  Brown. 

Connelley,  W.  E.    An  Appeal  'to  the  Record. 

California.     Acts  of  various  legislatures. 

Connecticut.    Acts  and  Laws. 

Congressional  Globe. 

Cordley,  Richard  A.  A  Hist,  of  Lawrence,  Kans. 

Cordley,  Richard  A.    New  Centennial  (1876)   Hist,  of  Kansas. 

Curtis,  Geo.  T.    Constitutional  Hist,  of  U.  S. 

Cudmore's  The  Civil  War  in  the  U.  S. 

Dillon's  History  of  Indiana. 

Doyle,  J.  A.    Eng.  Colonies  in  America. 

Dubois,  W.  E.  B.    Suppression  of  the  Am.  Slave  Trade. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  377 

Dunn,  J.  P.    History  of  Indiana. 

Brewery's  Hist,  of  Southampton,  Va.,  Insur.  in  1832. 

Edwards'  History  of  Illinois. 
Eggleston's  History  of  the  United  States. 

Elliot's  Debates  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  and  the  Ratifying  Bodies. 
Executive  Document  No.  57:    37th  Cong.,  2d  sess.     See  Government  Docu 
ments. 

Field,  Henry  M.    Bright  Skies  and  Dark  Shadows. 
Fiske,  John.    Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors. 
Freeman,  E.  A.    The  Reign  of  William  Rufus. 
Frothingham,  0.  B.    The  Rise  of  the  Rep.  of  the  U.  S. 
Frothingham,  0.  B.     The  Life  of  Theo.  Parker. 

Gayarre,  Chas.     History  of  Louisiana.       9 

Garrison's  Anti-Slavery  Examiner. 

Gladstone,  Thos.  H.    Kansas  j  or,  Squatter  Life  and  Border  Warfare. 

Government  Publications  and  Records. 

Scores  of  these  have  been  consulted.    Some  of  the  more  important   ones, 
relating  to  the  following  and  kindred  subjects,  are : 

Emancipation  propositions  of  1861,  in 

Senate  Executive  Documents,  Vol.  VI.,  No.  83 :  37th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 
FJag  of  the  United  States  dishonored  by  the  African  slave  trade,  in 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  217:    28th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Kansas,  admission  to  the  Union,  in 

Sen.  Exec.  Docs.,  No.  32 :    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Reports,  Vol.  II.,  No.  198 :    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  L,  No.  173:    34th  Cong.,  3d  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  III.,  No.  179:    34th  Cong.,  3d  sess. 
Kansas  citizens'  claims  for  loss  during  the  Northern  rebellion  in  1854  to 

1857,  in 

House  Misc.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  43 :    35th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  III.,  Pts.  1  and  2,  No.  104 :    36th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 
Kansas,  President's  messages  on  disturbances,  reports  of  committees,  &c., 


in 


Sen.  Exec.  Docs.,  Vol.  VI.,  No.  4 :    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Reports,  Vol.  I.,  No.  34 :    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Exec.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.,  No.  28:    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Kansas,  proposition  to  erect  new  Territories  from  contiguous  portion  in 

1860;  President's  special  message;  memorials,  &c.,  in 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  15:    36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Kansas   constitutions,    reports    of   Congressional    committees    concerning 

&c.,  in 

House  Misc.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  82:    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.,  No.  21:    35th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Reports,  Vol.  I.,  No.  82 :    35th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 


378  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  III.,  No.  377 :    35th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Misc.  Docs.,  Vol.  I.,  No.  44 :    35th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

House  Misc.  Docs.,  Vol.  I.,  No.  6 :    36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  II.,  No.  7:    36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Kansas  Territory,  laws  of,  Journal  of,  correspondence,  &c.,  &c.,  in 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  XL,  No.  23 :    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  IX.,  No.  66:    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  10:    34th  Cong.,  3d  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  I.,  No.  8:    35th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  VI.,  No.  17:    35th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Negroes,  colonization  of,  &c.,  in 

House  Reports,  No.  97:    16th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  64:    19th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  II.,  No.  101 :    19th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

Sen,  Docs.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  81j    20th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  178*    20th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  II.,  No.  277:    21st  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  III.,  No.  348 :    21st  Cong.,  1st  sees. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  II.,  No.  277 :    22d  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Reports,  Vol.  III.,  No.  283 :    27th  Cong.,  3d  sess. 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  218:    28th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Slaves,  inflammatory  appeals  to  excite  insurrection  among,  in  1835  and 

1836,  in 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  118:    24th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Slaves,  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  for  the  return  of 'fugitive,  in 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  I.,  No.  19 :    20th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  I.,  No.  26:    15th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

Slaves,  John  Brown's  Harper's  Ferry  insurrection  of;  report  of  his  cap 
ture,  &c.,  in 

Sen.  Exec.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  2,  p.  19:    36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Repts.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  278 :    36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Slave  Trade  with  Cuba,  in 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  115:    26th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 
Slaves  imported  in  1822,  in 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  48:    16th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  93:    17th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Slave  Trade,  memorials,  petitions,  &c.,  relative  to,  in  1817  to  1830,  in 

House  Repts.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  348:    21st  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  II.,  No.  6:    31st  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  46:    15th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
Slave  Trade  in  1855  to  1860,  in 

Ho.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  7 :    36th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 
Slave  ships,  persons  engaged  in  the  trade,  &c.,  &c.,  from  1819  to  1862,  in 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  VI.,  No.  107:    15th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  193:    20th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  53:    37th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  379 

House  Repts.,  Vol.  III.,  No.  283 :    27th  Cong.,  3d  sess. 

House  Repts.,  one  vol.,  No.  34 :    27th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  115:    26th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

Sen.  Docs.,  Vol.  V.,  No.  300 :    29th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  XIV.,  No.  66:    31st  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  IX.,  No.  73:    32d  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Sen.  Ex.  Docs.,  Vol.  VIIL,  No.  698 :    33d  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Repts.,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  602:  -36th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

House  Docs.,  Vol.  IX.,  Nos.  152  and  163:    imh  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Grant,  U.  S.     Personal  Memoirs. 

Gray,  W.  H.    A  History  of  Oregon. 

Gregg,  Percy  (English).    History  of  the  United  States. 

Hale,  E.  E.    Kanzas  and  Nebraska  (1854). 

Hallam's  History  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Hamilton,  Alex.     Works. 

Hawthorne,  Julian.     History  of  the  United  States. 

Hart,  A.  B.    Amer.  Contemporary  History. 

Harpers  Book  of  Facts. 

Harper's  Encyclopaedia  of  U.  S.  Hist.   (1902). 

Hart's  Source  Book. 

Hildreth's  History  of  the  United  States. 

Hill,  Mabel.    Liberty  Documents. 

Higginson,  T.  H.    Travellers  and  Outlaws. 

Hinton,  R.  J.    John  Brown  and  His  Men. 

Hinsdale,  B.  A.    The  Old  Northwest. 

Hittel,  Theo.  H.    History  of  California. 

Hitchcock,  Ripley.     The  Louisiana  Purchase   (1904). 

Hosmer,  Jas.  K.    A  Short  Hist,  of  the  Mississippi  Valley. 

Howe,  Henry.     History  of  Ohio   (Cent.  Ed.) 

Hoist,  Dr.  H.  von.    History  of  the  U.  S. 

Hough's  American  Constitutions. 

House  Documents  (U.  S.),  Vols.  CXI.  and  CXIL:    The  Documentary  Hist 

of  the  U.  S. 

House  Report,  No.  200:    34th  Cong.,  1st  sess. 
House  Documents:    See  Government  Publications. 

Johnson,  Rossiter.    A  Short  History  of  the  Civil  War. 
Johnson,  Alex.     The  United  States. 

Kansas,  Acts  and  Laws. 

Kansas  criminal  relief  bill :    Journal  House  of  Repesentatives,  U.  S    p   1315 

July  29,  1856. 

Kansas  Historical  Collections. 
Kent's  Commentaries    (Law),  13th  ed. 
King's  History  of  Ohio. 
Knight,.  Chas.     History  of  Europe. 


380  NORTHERN"  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Lamb's  Biographical  Dictionary:    John  Brown. 

Landon,  Judson  A.    The  Const.  Hist,  and  Gov.  U.  S. 

Locke,  Mary  S.    Anti-Slavery  in  America  (Radcliff  College  monograph). 

Lord,  John.     Beacon  Lights  of  History. 

Lowery's  Spanish  Settlements  in  the  U.  S. 

Lingard,  John.    History  of  England. 

Macaulay's  History  of  England. 

Madison's  Journal  of  the  Oonst.  Convention. 

Marshall,  John.    Hist.  Amer.  Colonies. 

Mayo's  Guide  (Virginia  Law), 

Messages  and  Documents.  Richardson's  compilation. 

Memoir  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Penn. 

Monette,  J.  W.    Hist.  Mississippi  Valley. 

Montgomery's  The  Leading  Facts  of  Eng.  Hist. 

Moore's  The  American  Congress. 

Moore,  Chas.    The  Northwest  Under  Three  Flags. 

Moore,  Geo.  H.     History  of  Slavery  in  Mass. 

Morris,  W.  A.     Sketch  of  Mrs.  Victor,  Oregonian,  '03. 

Morse's  Thomas  Jefferson. 

McDonald's  Select  Documents'. 

McKee,  T.  H.    Platforms  of  all  Parties. 

McMasters,  J.  B.     History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. 

National  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography. 

New  Jersey  Historical  Collections. 

New  York :    Documents  of  Colonial  Hist.  Procured  in  England,  Holland,  and 

France  by  J.  R.  Broadhead.     (Albany,  1858.) 
Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln's  Compl.  Works. 
Nieboer,  H.  J.     Slavery  as  an  Industrial  System. 
Niles'  Register   (a  periodical). 

Observations  on  Negroes   (a  pamphlet  in  Library  of  Congress). 
Old  South    (Meeting  House,  Boston)   Leaflets. 
Oregon :    Journal  Constitutional  Convention  of  1857. 

Page,  W.  H.     The  Rebuilding  of  Old  Commonwealths. 

Parkman,  F.     The  Old  Regime  in  Canada. 

Parton's  Life  of  Thos.  Jefferson. 

Phillips,  Wm.     The  Conquest  of  Kansas. 

Pike's  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War.      (A  compilation  of  newspaper  and 

other  articles.) 

Pitkin's  History  of  the  United  States. 
Political  Pamphlets   (in  Library  of  Congress.) 
Powell's  Secession  and  Nullification. 
Puliam's  The  Constitutional  Laws  of  Virginia. 

Randall's  Life  of  Thos.  Jefferson. 

Redpath,  Jas.     Public  Life  of  John  Brown. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  381 

Ehodes,  J.  F.    History  of  the  United  States. 

Ridpath,  J.  C.    History  of  the  United  States. 

Robinson,  Chas.    The  Kansas  Conflict. 

Roosevelt,  Theo.     Thos.  H.  Ben  ton   (a  sketch  of  and  his  times). 

Roosevelt,  Theo.    New  York:    Historic  Towns  Series. 

Roosevelt,  Theo.    The  Winning  of  the  West. 

Sanborn,  F.  B.    Life  of  John  Brown. 

Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States. 

Senate  (U.  S.)  Documents. 

Seward,  W.  H.,  Works. 

Shaler,  N.  S.    The  United  States  of  America, 

Siebert,  W.  H.     The  Underground  Railroad. 

Slave  Laws  of  Jamaica.     (London,  1828.) 

Smith,  T.  C.     The  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties. 

Smith's  St.  Clair  Papers. 

Smith,  J.  H.    Commerce  and  Commercial  Navigation. 

Smith,  W.  H.    A  Political  History  of  Slavery. 

Smith's  Suppression  of  the  Am.  Slave  Trade. 

Smith,  Goldwin.    The  United  Kingdom. 

South  Carolina,  Proceedings  of  Convention  of  1835. 

Sparks'  Writing  of  Washington. 

Sparks'  Expansion  of  the  Am.  People. 

Sparks,  Jared.    Dip.  Correspondence  American  Revolution. 

Spears,  J.  R.    The  American  Slave  Trade. 

Spring's  History  of  Kansas'. 

Thayer,  Eli.    The  Kansas  Crusade. 

Thompson's  History  of  the  United  States. 

Thomas,  W.  H.    The  American  Negro. 

Thompson,  Maurice.     The  Story  of  Louisiana. 

Todd,  C.  B.    The  Story  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

Tomlinson's  Kansas  in  1858. 

Turnbull,  David.    Cuba  (historic  sketch). 

Tuttle,  Chas.  R.    New  Centenary  History  of  Kansas. 

United  States  Charters  and  Constitutions.    Compiled  by  B.  P.  Poore. 
United  States  Supreme  Court.    Reports  of  decided  cases. 

Vermont.    Acts  of  various  legislatures. 

Walker,  F.  A.    The  Making  of  the  Nation. 

Wanderer,  slave  ship.    Richardson's  Presidents'  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol. 

V.,  534.  555. 

Washington,  B.  T,     The  Future  of  the  American  Negro. 
Webster,  Daniel.    Works. 
Weeks,  S.  B.    Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery. 
Wharton,  Francis.    Revolutionary  Diplom.  Correspondence. 


382  NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION. 

Wilberforoe,  Edw.    Brazil  (sketch  of). 

Wilders  Annals  of  Kansas. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.    Division  and  Reunion. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.    A  History  of  the  Am.  People  (1902). 

Wilson,  Henry.     Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power. 

Winsor,  Justin.     The  Western  Movement. 

Winsor,  Justin.    Narrative  and  Critical  Hist,  of  the  U.  S. 

Wise,  Henry  A.    Seven  Decades  of  the  Am.  Union. 

Woolsey's  Political  Science. 

Wright,  Carroll  D.     Industrial  Evolution. 


The  following,  not  regarded  as  necessary  to  sustain  the  conclusions  in  the 
monograph,  nevertheless  have  a  cumulative  importance;  and,  of  the  many 
valuable  Southern  productions,  these  furnish  some  important  light  bearing 
particularly  upon  one  or  more  of  the  various  issues  treated  in  the  text : 

Bassett,  J.  S.     Servitude  in  North  Carolina. 
Bassett,  J.  S.     Anti- Slavery  Leaders  in  North  Carolina. 
Brown,  Alex.    The  First  Republic  in  America. 

Bruce,  P.  A.     Econom.  Hist,  of  Va.  in  the  17th  Cent.    See  Vol.  II.  for  the 
history  of  early  labor  systems. 

Clayton,  Victoria  C.    White  and  Black  Under  the  Old  Regime. 

The  Alabama-Kansas  movement  did  not  leave  the  South  until  August,  1856 
This  was  more  than  a  year  after  the  emigrant  incubator  in  the  North  began  its 
work.  The  money  contributed  to  the  Alabama  movement  was  used  to  buy 
homes,  and  the  emigrants  became  bnna  fide  settlers.  Mrs.  Clayton  is  an  eye 
witness  to  this  branch  of  the  Southern  emigration. 

Cobb,  T.  R.  R.    Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery. 

Cooke,  John  Esten.     History  of  Virginia. 

Curry,  J.  L.  M.    The  Southern  States  of  the  Am.  Union. 

Curry,  J.  L.  M.    Civ.  Hist,  of  the  Gov.  of  the  Conf.  Sts. 

Davis,  Jefferson.    A  Short  Hist,  of  the  Conf.  States. 
Dixon,  Susan  B.    The  True  Hist,  of  the  Mo.  Compromise. 

Gordon,  Gen.  Jno.  B.    Remin.  of  the  Civil  War  (1904). 

A  noble  work.  See  his  reason  for  the  fact  that  the  South  believed  she  was 
acting  in  self-defence. 

Grady,  B.  F.    The  Case  of  the  South  vs.  the  North. 

Hamilton,  P.  J.     Colonial  Mobile. 

Hodson,  Joseph.    The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy. 

Useful  for  its  political  history  of  Troupe,  Quitman,  and  Yancey. 

Ingle,  Edw.     Condition  of  the  Ante-Bellum  South:    Manufacturer's  Record, 
Feb.  10,  1903. 


NORTHERN  REBELLION  AND  SOUTHERN  SECESSION.  383 

"Le  Commerce  d'  Amerique,"  &c.    Lienden,  1782. 

Vol.  II.  is  interesting  for  its  Information  concerning  early  cotton  culture, 
slavery,  &c.,  in  the  Louisiana  country. 

Mason,  Virginia,    The  Public  Life  of  John  M.  Mason. 

Mississippi  Hist.  Soc.  Publications. 

Montgomery,  Frank  A.    Remin.  of  a  Mississippian  in  War  and  Peace. 

The  writer  was  an  Old  Line  Whig  until  the  manner  in  which  the  North  re 
ceived  John  Brown's  execution  made  him  an  avowed  secessionist — a  valuable 
witness  to  the  South's  fear  of  physical  danger  at  the  hands  of  a  dangerous 
Northern  party. 

Picket!,  -A.  J.    History  of  Alabam. 

Smith's  Debates  and  Proceedings  Ala.  Secession  Conv. 
Southern  History  Association   (Washington)   Magazine. 
Southern  Historical  Society  (Richmond,  Va.)   Papers. 


o 

-51 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


